


. 







BookA-^ 



PRESENTED r»V 



s 



TEXT BOOK 



ON 



BAPTISM 



INFANT BAPTISM TOICATM 



AND 



DIFFERENT xMODES 



OF 



EQUAL VALIDITY 



BY ROBERT H. CONKLIN. 



ROCHESTER : 



PULISHED BY ALLING, SEYMOUR & CO 
P. Canfield, Printer, under the Museum. 

1846. 



■ Css 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846 

BY ROBERT H. CONKL1N, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Northern District 

of New -York. 






PREFACE 



This volume is offered to the Christian public, not only in compli- 
ance with the advice and counsel of many distinguished gospel minis- 
ters of different faith and order ; but also from the honest conviction, 
that, as the subject is presented in a somewhat new and original light, 
and peculiarly adapted to every class of readers, it will be useful in the 
church of Christ as a ''Text Book on Baptism." It goes into the 
world with the humble prayer of the author, that it may be useful — that 
it may enlighten the ignorant — guide the erring — confirm and establish 
in truth the doubting — strengthen the weak, and contribute to restore 
the entire christian church to apostolic faith and practice. It is design- 
ed not as a substitute for the many valuable treatises already in circu- 
lation ; but as an auxiliary — a kindred, fellow laborer " Earnestly con- 
tending for the faith once delivered to the saints." 

That this volume will experience the common ordeal, to which theo- 
logical controversy is subjected, is possible : nor does the author 
plead any " exemption act," in his own behalf, or beg an unmolested 
passage for his work. He simply claims such Christian courtesy and 
candor, as a generous opponent always bestows : He asks a patient, 
prayerful examination of the arguments submitted for the consideration 
of the reader, before rebuke is administered, or condemnation pronounc- 
ed, 

The author has availed himself of standard writers on both sides of 
the question ; and has frequently quoted such authorities. He ha3 en- 
deavored faithfully and impartially to exhibit authorities, token present- 
ed, either by quoting the substance, or language / and if injustice has 
been done to any, correction will be gratefully acknowledged, 



IV PREFACE. 

That the work has some defects both in language and style, is alto- 
gether probable ; but as the author has discovered none that materially 
change, or affect the sense, he commends such imperfections to the 

candor and forbearance of the reader- 

The Author- 
J we 18th, 1846. 



PART FIRST. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE ABMHAMIC CHURCH. 



ROMANS, 15 : 8. 

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the 
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." 

Our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world both to fulfill 
and confirm. Those significant rites and types of the law, 
that respected his character and mission, as our atoning sac- 
rifice for sin, have been fulfilled: while his coming also 
confirmed the promises made unto the fathers, of spiritual 
blessings for themselves — their posterity, and all the nations 
of the- earth. Our text contemplates him in his relation to 
the promises. The truth of God, and the confirmation of 
these promises, demanded that Jesus Christ should be a min- 
ister of the circumcision ; not only born in the lineage of 
the circumcision, but also a minister under that seal and cove- 
nant, which, in the days of Abraham became the visible 
charter and constitution of the church of God ; and which 
pledged the truth of God for the confirmation of promises, ex- 
tending to all the "families and nations of the earth." 

The reader will observe, that the Apostle does not say 
" Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision . . . 
to confirm a promise ; or to confirm the promise." But we 
find it in the plural, the promises. All therefore, of the prom- 
ises are included ; whether they relate to the coming of the 
Messiah, his person, or consequent blessings. Such were 
2 



8 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

the arguments addressed to the Gentile world, to prove their 
interest in the gospel of Jesus Christ, as may be seen in the 
connection. 

Now, if we can find in God's Bible any compact, or covenant, 
that includes the very promises Jesus Christ came to confirm, 
then that compact or covenant must necessarily be the con- 
stitution or basis of the church of God ; and the laws and 
usages of the true church, must in substance, be learned 
from such covenant or constitution. If this position be nut 
true, then, either the true church has no constitution ; or she 
has a constitution without spiritual promises ; and therefore 
without a Saviour ! Such conclusions are too wild, to find 
serious advocates ; hence we will now proceed to the con- 
sideration of the following propositions. 

I. Circumcision was the seal of a spiritual covenant, and 
the initiatory rite into the true visible church of God. 

II. Infants were, by Divine authority, brought into cove- 
nant relation and constituted members of the church by the 
same rite that constituted adults members. 

These propositions, if maintained, decide questions and 
principles of great moment to the church of God. They in- 
volve the rights and privileges of all believers, and also the 
covenant relations of their offspring. Let us then in the 
spirit of enlightened, Christian candor investigate this subject, 
ambitious to know the truth, and resolved to embrace and 
practice the truth, however it may affect our creeds, or our 
standing among men. If we thus "search" after truth, our 
investigations will lead us first to God and his Bible ; and 
secondly, to give impartial weight and justice to the opinions, 
and arguments of men. Reader, we ask this, and no more. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 9 

I. Circumcision was the seal of a spiritual covenant and 
the initiatory rite into the true visible church of God. 

The great question at issue between our opponents and 
ourselves upon this point, is, whether the covenant of cir- 
cumcision was a temporal, worldly covenant ; or an evan- 
gelical, spiritual covenant, promising gospel blessings. 
Those denominations, that maintain the Divine right of in- 
fant church membership, insist that the covenant of circum- 
cision, was a spiritual covenant, and that its promises and 
provisions respected spiritual blessings. They admit that 
the land of Canaan, and other temporal advantages were in- 
cluded, but these were incidental, and among the means to 
consummate the great design and end of the covenant, which 
was the conveyance of spiritual blessings, to the seed of 
Abraham, and all the nations of the earth. 

In opposition to these views, our opponents maintain, that 
the covenant of circumcision was a worldly transaction; the 
land of Canaan, with certain privileges and temporal advan- 
tages embraced the great design of said covenant ; while if 
spiritual blessings were conveyed, they were incidental and 
did not express the great object of the covenant of circum- 
cision. In fact, our opponents almost unanimously affirm, 
that God made another covenant with Abraham, totally dis- 
tinct from the covenant of circumcision, and that the former 
was the charter of spiritual blessings to Abraham, and his 
seed, and all nations. The rite of circumcision, they main- 
tain was not a spiritual rite, but a mark of carnal descent, 
and of titleship to the land of Canaan. (See Abram 
Booth's Views, vol. 2 : p. 250. Debate on Baptism, Camp- 
bell and McCalla, p. 174, 175.) 

The careful reader will readily perceive that these distinct 
and totally different views of the covenant of circumcision 



10 CONSTITUTION OF liu- 

are quite essential to the support of that system, which de- 
the right of infant ehureh membership. For in estab- 
lishing the position, that M eireumeision was the seal of a 
spiritual eovenant, and the initiatory rite into the true visible 
church of God," we sweep from its foundation that system 
which rejects the doctrine of infant consecration under the 
Abrahamie covenant. We also prove that the idea of two 
covenants, is an absurditv, bv demonstrating the spiritual 
character of the covenant of circumcision : because our op- 
ponents will not.be so inconsistent as to affirm that God made 
two spiritual covenants with Abraham. The reader, there- 
fore will discover the necessity of clearly delineating the 
character of the covenant of circumcision. But before en- 
tering upon this subject, we wish to call the attention of our 
readers to some general views of the constitution of the 
church. 

Constitution of the Church. 

1. To organize society, civil or religious, some compact 
or constitution is necessary, as the basis of such society. 
The very word organization, involves the idea o{ some ar- 
rangement or agreement, expressed or understood, which 
constitutes the bond of union, and forms a rule of action for 
such organization. When men unite for purposes ot^ gov- 
ernment, or any other object, a constitution is the prelimina- 
ry measure — it is laying the corner-stone, or the foundation 
upon which the whole superstructure must rest. If you 
would learn the character and design of such society — the 
conditions of membership, the privileges, duties, and respon- 
sibilities of its members, go to the constitution. This posi- 
tion is so obvious, that argument seems unnecessary. Our 
relations as citizens of America, in every form, illustrate and 
inculcate this truth. Are you a foreigner, and would you 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. ll 

become a naturalized citizen of this Republic ? You must 
swear to support the constitution. Would you exercise the 
duties of an officer under our government ? You must first 
swear to support the constitution. 

So in the Divine administration. When God organized 
his church in the family of Abraham, a covenant or consti- 
tution was necessary ; and God accordingly made an ever- 
lasting covenant with Abraham and his seed. We say con- 
stitution or covenant, not because we mean to affirm that the 
two words mean precisely the same thing under all circum- 
stances. But the covenant of circumcision, as we shall en- 
deavor to prove, was emphatically the constitution of the 
Church, since without compliance with the conditions of that 
covenant not a member of Abraham's family could enjoy 
the blessings or privileges promised. Yes ; God and his 
people must treat him as an alien and foreigner because he 
had not subscribed and sworn to support the constitution of 
Israel. Hence, God ordained that the " uncircumcised soul 
should be cut off from his people," as a covenant breaker, or 
one who would not keep covenant with God. And that cov- 
enant, as we shall prove, bound every man, who accepted its 
conditions, to worship the God of Abraham, and maintain 
the ordinances of the true religion. In other words, it bound 
him to obedience, perpetual and perfect. 

Again : The constitution or covenant of the Abrahamic 
church, defined the conditions of membership, the duties and 
privileges enjoyed and imposed — all clearly set forth and 
enforced by considerations as imperious and weighty, as 
the authority of God and endless destiny of man could make 
them. Will our opponents take the singular position that 
the church in Abraham's day had no constitution ? We 
think not, unless they maintain the equally absurd sentiment, 
2* 



12 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

that a constitution is not essential to the organization of any 
society. 

2. The reader must not infer the revision or repeal of 
the constitution of the church. We should remember, that 
the revision or repeal of a law, must be as explicit and une- 
quivocal as the enactment. The power that framed the 
constitution must revoke it, before it ceases to be obligatory. 
Multitudes are misled and fall into error for the want of in- 
formation and proper instruction upon this point. They 
read the New Testament and discover that changes have oc- 
curred in the old dispensation, hence infer that the constitu- 
tion of the church is altogether new, and must bear date 
from the introduction of the Christian dispensation. Such 
individuals are guilty of great impropriety, in. looking for a 
new constitution for the church, simply because certain rites 
and ceremonies, once typical, have been fulfilled, and con- 
sequently given place to others. What would be thought of 
the intelligence of a lawyer who should infer the repeal of 
the constitution of the State of New York, because in the 
year 1830 the State published the " Revised Statutes ?" A 
school boy would point such a lawyer to the history of the 
State, not to look for " Revised Statutes," but to find a pub- 
lic, formal repeal of the constitution. And such a public, 
formal repeal of the constitution of a State, would be resolv- 
ing it into the original disorganized elements. 

So in the constitution of the church ; a change of dispen- 
sations may be a simple revision or change, in rites and cer- 
emonies that does not affect the constitution. The apostle 
Paul, speaking in Heb. 9 : 9, 10, of those very rites and 
ceremonies, declares they were " imposed until the time of 
reformation." Now reader, mark, a " time of reformation" 
does not imply destruction ; or any fundamental change in 
a church j but simple improvement and greater purity of 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 13 

character. The repeal of the constitution of the church 
would necessarily involve the disorganization of the church. 
A change of such magnitude — revolutionary, or rather dis- 
organizing the church of God, would not be a private act— a 
" thing done in a corner." Where then we inquire, is the 
public, formal act of repealing the old constitution, and or- 
daining the new as the present charter of the church ? Let 
the candid reader be consistent and demand chapter and 
verse — a " Thus saith the Lord," before he abandons that 
constitution or covenant, which God ratified with his ancient 
Israel. Where is the act recorded ? 

There is a law maxim, which applies to the subject now 
under consideration with peculiar force. Lexstat dum ratio 
manet, i.e., The law stands while the reason remains. This 
law principle is emphatically true not only in its application 
to human government and laws, but also in the divine admin- 
istration. We might suppose men guilty of the folly of 
changing constitutions and laws, while the reasons for their 
adoption originally, still remained ; but shall we impute such 
weakness to Him, who is the " same yesterday, to-day and 
forever ?" Therefore, if our opponents maintain that the 
original constitution of the church is abolished, let them 
prove, that the reasons for that constitution no longer exist, 
and that human society, our relations to God and man, have 
so materially changed, that the church of God demands a 
new constitution : Or let them furnish unequivocal evidence 
of a change of her constitution, and we will be satisfied, that 
in the Divine mind, the reasons for such a change existed. 
We hold ourselves responsible for the proof, that God gave 
the Abrahamic church a constitution, defining the conditions, 
privileges and duties of membership ; while the labor of 
proving the repeal of that constitution, is the task of object- 
ors. 



14 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

The reader guided by these general principles, which we 
conceive to be sound and logical, will find the course of in- 
vestigation simple and easy. He is not on a tour exploring 
mythologies, and consulting strange oracles, whose mysteri- 
ous and doubtful language only adds obscurity to darkness. 
But to understand the laws and usages of the church of God, 
he goes to her organization and consults her constitution 
with the honest inquiry, what does that teach 1 What were 
the conditions of admission then ? Who were received into 
covenant relation then? What were the rites and duties, 
the privileges, promises, and responsibilities then ? Now the 
reader is prepared to consult the history of the church and 
see if her constitution has been revised or repealed ; and if 
so, what changes have occurred, and what reasons have ex- 
isted for such changes. Hence, the reader does not com- 
mence the study of inspired history, where inspired history 
ends. No : the Old Testament — God's earliest and first 
revelation to man ; is his first lesson ; and, instead of begin- 
ning, he ends with the New Testament — God's last revela- 
tion to man. 

Commencing with the New Testament, the study of the 
constitution, and history of the church, is about as wise, and 
philosophical, as it would be, to commence studying the po- 
litical history of the United States, by an examination of 
documents and papers relating to the acts of the 27th Con- 
gress. Or seek to know the occasion of the American Rev- 
olution by consulting the Articles of Peace ratified after the 
war. Would you reason intelligently upon this point, read 
all that God has revealed. 

We are now n prepared to analyze the constitution or cov- 
enant of the church, and ascertain its true character, both in 
relation to its designs and provisions. This covenant is 
found in the 17th chap, of Genesis, and is called "the cove- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 15 

nant of circumcision," because the rite of circumcision was 
the appointed sign and seal of God's covenant with his peo- 
ple. But before quoting the language of this covenant, we 
will state our positions, that the reader may compare them 
with the proof as we proceed, and judge for himself, of the 
relevancy and conclusiveness of the testimony or arguments 
adduced. 

Our general proposition affirms that " circumcision was 
the seal of a spiritual covenant, and the initiatory rite into 
the true visible church of God." This proposition presents 
three distinct, leading ideas, which we will consider sepa- 
rately. 

1. The covenant of circumcision was a spiritual cove- 
nant, and the only covenant God ever made with Abraham. 

2. Circumcision was a spiritual rite, had a spiritual signi- 
fication and referred to spiritual blessings. 

3. The rite of circumcision, was the rite of initiation into 
the true visible church of God. 

The reader will discover, that we have stated our posi- 
tions strong and distinct. We can see no sophistry to mis- 
lead, or ambiguity to shield us from the attacks of an oppo* 
nent. We desire to submit our positions to the ordeal of 
criticism and sound logic. Our object is not victory, but 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He, there- 
fore, who convinces us of error deserves our warmest grati- 
tude. 

Covenant of Circumcision. 

1. The covenant of circumcision, was a spiritual cove- 
nant and the only covenant God ever made with Abraham. 

Gen. 17 : 1 — 14. " And when Abram was ninety years 
old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto 



16 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

him, I am the Almighty God, walk before me and be thou 
perfect. 

2. 'And 1 will make my covenant between me and thee 
and will multiply thee exceedingly. 

8,4. ' And Abram fell on his face : and God talked with 
him saying, As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, 
and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 

5. ' Neither shall thy name be any more called Abram, 
but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many na- 
tions I have made thee. 

6. i And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will 
make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 

7. ' And I will establish my covenant between me and 
thee and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an ever- 
lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed af- 
ther thee. 

8. * And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, 
the land wherein thou art a stranger — all the land of Ca- 
naan for an everlasting possession : and I will be their God. 

9. ( And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my 
covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their 
generations. 

10. i This is my covenant which ye shall keep between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee : Every man child 
among you shall be circumcised. 

11. ' And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, 
and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 

12. ' And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
among you, every man child in your generations, he that is 
born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger 
which is not of thy seed. 

13. 'He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
with thy money must needs be circumcised ; and my covenant 
shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 17 

14. ' And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of 
his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from 
his people ; he hath broken my covenant." 

If the reader has carefully marked the language of this 
covenant, he has been impressed with the peculiar energy 
and force of expression. It bears the impression of some le- 
gal instrument, drawn by a master hand, and where techni- 
cality and repetition were essential to prevent mistake and 
perversion. How beautifully it answers to the language in 
2 Sam. 23 : 5. " Yet he hath made with me an everlasting 
covenant, ordered in all things and sure." 

God introduced the subject, at this time, to Abraham, in a 
most solemn and impressive manner : " I am the Almighty 
God : walk before me and be thou perfect. 5 ' The same 
sentiment is expressed, and in similar language, by our Sa- 
viour in his Sermon on the Mount. Math. 5 : 48. " Be ye 
therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is 
perfect." 

Now, the great question, and first to be decided, is wheth- 
er the covenant of circumcision was a spiritual covenant ; or 
a temporal, worldly transaction. Did it embrace spiritual, 
gospel blessings, as the great design of the covenant ; or dis- 
tinguished temporal advantages ? While it included several 
objects, still there must have been some great leading design 
in the covenant, unless God acted upon this occasion without 
any particular design. 

1. The design and object of the covenant was to set 
apart and constitute Abraham and his seed, the people of the 
living God ; we find this expressly affirmed in the 7th verse. 
" And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlast- 
ing covenant, to he a God unto thee and to thy seed after 
thee." Now if establishing a covenant with Abraham and 



18 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

his seed, to be a God unto him and his seed, did not set them 
apart, and constitute them, the people of the living God, then 
human language cannot express that relation. 

2. This covenant required perfect obedience — First verse 
" I am the Almighty God, walk before me and be thou per- 
fect. 5 ' The gospel can only say "Be ye therefore perfect, 
even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." A 
new covenant if given could only say, Walk before me and 
be thou perfect. The question in not whether Abraham and 
his seed were perfect ; but did the covenant demand perfect 
obedience. So with the gospel. What does it require ? 
In due time we will give ample proof upon this point. 

3. This covenant promised spiritual blessings to Abra- 
ham and his seed, and to the nations of the earth, through 
Abraham. In the 7th verse God promised to be a God unto 
Abraham and his seed after him : and in the 8th verse, he 
declares " I will be their God." Reader, can there be a more 
comprehensive promise, than " I will be a God unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee ?" Here, Jehovah, in covenant 
appropriates himself, with his infinite fullness to his covenant- 
ing people. The promise "I will be your God," includes 
all, both for time and eternity. The reader will observe, 
that the promise to Abraham's seed, is in the same unquali- 
fied and unlimited sense, that it is to Abraham, himself \ " I 
will be a god unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Now if 
God, in a covenant sense became the God of Abraham and 
his seed, then to whom did those " promises made unto the 
fathers," relate — promises which Jesus Christ, the minister 
of the circumcision, came to confirm ? "But where" says 
the reader " is the promise of spiritual blessings to the na- 
tions of the earth ?" Answer : In Gen. 17 : 4, 5. " As 
for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt 
be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 19 

more be called Abram ; but thy name shall be Abraham, for a 
father of many nations have I made thee!" Now this prom- 
ise we affirm relates to believers, of all nations, and in every 
age of the world. Let our reader remember this, until we 
give the proof. If we fail of proving it, we promise to aban- 
don the whole argument. But if we do prove it ; then be- 
yond all controversy the covenant of circumcision included 
promises of spiritual blessings to all the nations of the earth. 
On this point we defer proof until we can present it in con- 
nection with the objection of our opponents. 

4. The covenant of circumcision also promised, to Abra- 
ham and his seed, temporal blessings. But as our opponents 
maintain that temporal advantages were the chief blessings 
of this covenant, proof is wholly unnecessary. We shall 
show, however, in the progress of this discussion, that so far 
from being the chief blessings of this Covenant ; they were 
only incidental, and necessary to the accomplishment of 
those promises that respected spiritual blessings. 

5. The blessings of this covenant were conditional. 
Abraham and his seed, and servants bought with his money, 
and thus coming under his jurisdiction, must receive the seal 
of God's covenant, and embrace the true religion. Hence 
" The uncircumeised soul shall be cut off from his people." 
God designed to separate from the world, " a peculiar people, 
a holy nation ;" therefore Abraham must not keep a servant, 
unless he would embrace religion, by entering into covenant 
with God. 

, Some have supposed, that these servants were circumcised 
upon the ground of Abraham's faith, and that they were 
neither voluntary or had any voice in the matter. Our Bap- 
tist brethren sometimes flourish a kindred argument or ob- 
jection with some success. " Why," say they, " do you not 
baptize your servants or domestics, as well as your children, 
3 



20 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

if Abraham's covenant, and example is your guide V 1 But 
the idea that Abraham's servants were not voluntary, and 
cordial in receiving the seal of the covenant, is grossly ab- 
surd, when viewed in the light of facts. 

1. In Gen. 14 : 14, we find that Abraham could arm 318 
servants born in his house. Did he compel them all to re- 
ceive the rite of circumcision % Let the objector believe it, 
if he can ! 

2. The objection is an implication of Abraham's charac- 
ter. As if Abraham, the father of the faithful, and friend of 
God, would so shamefully neglect the religious instruction 
of his servants that they were ignorant of God and his cove- 
nant ! In the very next chapter, 18 : 19, we find God'sopin- 
ion concerning Abraham : " For I know him, that he will 
command his children, and his household after him, and they 
shall keep the ways of the Lord to do justice and judgment ; 
that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, that which he has 
spoken of him." With such testimonials of character, and 
such an endorser, who can doubt the existence and p ractice 
of the worship of the true God in Abraham's family, and 
among his servants ; even before the covenant of circum- 
cision was given. It would be strange indeed, if a man so 
pre-eminently devoted to God, as was Abraham should ne- 
glect the religious instruction and souls of his numerous 
servants. Yes : glowing with zeal for the worship of God, 
and exhibiting a faith without a parallel in the history of the 
world, yet leaving multitudes in his employ, and under his 
jurisdiction, in a state of ignorance and heathenism. No : 
reader, the illustrious Abraham was guilty of no such bar- 
barous inconsistency. His character is a pledge to the world, 
that every * adult servant was carefully instructed into the 
nature and design of God's covenant, and then voluntarily 
received its initiating seal. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 2] 

There are two instances on record, ever memorable in 
the history of Abraham, where the covenant is referred to, 
which deserve some attention. These instances exhibit 
God's confidence in Abraham, and Abraham's confidence in 
God. The first refers to the destruction of Sodom. Gen* 
13 : 17, 18. " And the Lord said, shall I hide from Abra- 
ham that thing which I do ; seeing that Abraham shall surely 
become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the 
earth shall be blessed in him." 

The other instance is in connection with the offering up 
of Isaac on Mount Moriah ; an event that signalized the 
faith and obedience of Abraham and commended him as the 
example of the world. Gen. 22: 15, 16, 17, 18. "And 
the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven 
the second time, and said, by myself have I sworn saith the 
Lord, for, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not 
withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing, I will 
bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed as the 
stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, 
and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemy. And in 
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because 
thou hast obeyed my voice." 

In the latter instance we find the oath of God connected 
with the promise. That the reader may have no doubts in 
relation to the spiritual character of this covenant, we will 
now refer him to Paul's opinion. Heb. 6 : 13, 14, 17, 18. 
" For when God made promise to Abraham, because he 
could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, 
surely blessing, I will bless thee, and multiplying, I will mul- 
tiply thee .... Wherein God willing more abun- 
dantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of 
his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. That by two immuta- 
ble things, in which it w r as impossible for God to lie, we 



22 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to 
lay hold upon the hope set before us, 55 

The u two immutable things," were the promise and oath 
of God, by which the covenant received the strongest possi- 
ble confirmation. The reader will observe, that while the 
word " covenant" does not occur in the passage, still the 
very blessings named and promised in the covenant of cir- 
cumcision in Gen. 17, are mentioned in connection with the 
oath and promise of God. Let the reader satisfy himself by 
turning to those passages of Scripture. 

Covenant confirmed with Isaac 

The covenant of circumcision, so important to the seed of 
Abraham, we find confirmed with Isaac, and afterwards with 
Jacob. Gen. 26 : 2, 3, 4. " And the Lord appeared unto 
him (Isaac) and said, go not down into Egypt : dwell in the 
land which I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land ; and I 
will be with thee, and will bless thee : for unto thee, and un- 
to thy seed, I will give all these countries ; and I will per- 
form the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father ; and 
I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and 
in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 

Confirmed with Jacob. 

Gen. 28 : 13, 14. " And behold the Lord stood above it, 
(the ladder) and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy 
father, and the God of Isaac, the land whereon thou liest, to 
thee will I give it, and to thy seed. And thy seed shall be 
as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the 
west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south, and 
in thee and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed." 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 23 

If the reader wishes further proof, that not only temporal, 
but also spiritual blessings were included in those promises, 
we will again refer him for authority to the apostle Paul, 
Gal. 3:8. " And the Scripture foreseeing that God would 
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed." 
The promise, therefore, to Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac 
and Jacob, that in them and- in their seed, all the nations, 
and all the families of the earth should be blessed, included 
the gospel afterwards preached to the heathen world in the 
days of the apostles. There is no escape from this conclu- 
sion without impeaching the testimony of Paul. But I am 
aware that our opponents have a very plausible method of 
reasoning upon this point, by which they endeavor to impair 
and weaken the force of the argument in favor of infant 
church membership derived from the covenant of circumcis- 
ion. How far this method is logical and conclusive we will 
leave for others to decide, after presenting their arguments 
with our objections. 

Baptist Argument. 

1. Our Baptist brethren admit that God made a spiritual 
covenant with Abraham, which was the charter of spiritual 
blessings to all nations of the earth. But then, God made 
two covenants with Abraham, the first promised the Messiah, 
and consequently all other spiritual blessings ; while the. 
other was the covenant of circumcision — and was a temporal, 
or worldly covenant, promising the land of Canaan, a nu- 
merous posterity, and other temporal advantages. Circum- 
cision, they maintain, was not the seal of a spiritual cove- 
nant, but a mark of national distinction, and titleship to the 
knd of Canaan. Or as Mr. Abram Booth, a distinguished 
3* 



24 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

Baptist, says in vol. 2, p. 250, circumcision was " a sign 
of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and a to- 
ken of interest in those temporal blessings that were prom- 
ised to Abraham." The great Dr. Cox, of England, a learn- 
ed Baptist writer, remarks, page 137, " I haye already shown 
that the covenant of circumcision included solely temporal 
blessings, and that the rite was instituted to distinguish the 
Jews from other nations, and to show their title to the land 
of Canaan." That all Baptists maintain precisely the same 
views of these authors, we do not affirm. Some think cir- 
cumcision inculcated spiritual instruction, and had a spirit- 
ual signification. But all reject the doctrine that the cove- 
nant of which circumcision was the seal, embraced, as its 
great design and end, spiritual blessings. The idea, howev- 
er, of a worldly covenant with a spiritual seal, is a theologi- 
cal curiosity that we will examine under another position. 

Let us now attend to the argument offered in support of 
these views. Our opponents, in the first place direct us to 
Gen. 12 : 1, 2, 3. " Now the Lord had said unto Abram, 
get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from 
thy father's house into a land that I will show thee. And I 
will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and 
make thy name great, and thou shall be a blessing. And I 
will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth 
thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
In the next place, they refer us to Gal. 3:17. The cove- 
nant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law 
which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should, 
make the promise of none effect." Now, our opponents 
reckon back 430 years from the law, which they affirm car- 
ries us to Gen. 12 ; while the covenant of circumcision in 
Gen. 17, is only 406. Hence they maintain, that God made 
a spiritual covenant with Abraham, which is found in Gen. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 25 

12, and that 24 years after this, God made another and dis- 
tinct covenant with him, and that the latter was the charter 
of temporal blessings to Abraham and his posterity. 

The reader will see, that the fate of this argument depends 
very much upon chronology. We will not, however em- 
barrass the argument by dwelling upon the difficulty and 
uncertainty in settling chronological dates. To save labor 
w e will grant that the 12th chap, of Genesis carries us back 
precisely 430 years before the law was given on Sinai. 

Now, if their chronology is true, then, their argument is 
false, because what is related of Abraham in Gen. 12 : 1, 
2, 3, is in the past tense, and consequently refers to some- 
thing that had already taken place. Now reader, mark the 
language of the passage in Gen. 12 : 1, 2, 3. " Now the 
Lord had said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, " 
&c. The text does not read, " Now the Lord said" or did 
say ; but the Lord had said, sometime previous. This call 
to leave his country, we shall show occurred while Abraham 
was living in Mesopotamia, and before he dwelt in Haran. 

But as this argument is vital to that system which requires 
two covenants, we will propose another objection in regard 
to its location. Mr. Alexander Campbell, who has done 
more than any other man in America to oppose infant bap- 
tism ; in order to make the 430 years come out right, lo- 
cates Abraham in Haran, at the time God gave the spiritual 
covenant. He says, " One (covenant) was made with him 
(Abram) Gen. 12, when 75 years old in Haran ; this was 
430 years before the covenant of Sinai. This is called by 
the apostle, Gal. 3 : 17, 4 The covenant confirmed, concern- 
ing Christ, 5 as Macknight renders it. This covenant was af- 
terwards confirmed by an oath, Gen. 22, when Abraham of- 
fered up his son upon the altar." (See Campbell and Mc- 
Calla's Debate, p. 183.) This then is the substance of Mr. 



26 GONSTITUTION OF THE 

Campbell's arguments and those with him in opinion ; God 
made a spiritual covenant with Abraham in Haran, 430 
years before the law : (Proof, Gen. 12.) Now, reader, 
there is not a particle of evidence to support all this ; but 
expressly to the contrary. As an off-set we will give the 
testimony of Stephen, the martyr. A.cts 7 : 2, 3, 4. "The 
God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he 
was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charran (Heb., Har- 
an,) and said unto him, get thee out of thy country, and 
from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show 
thee. Then came he (after God called him) out of the. land 
of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charran." 

That Stephen refers to the same transaction mentioned in 
Gen. 12 : 1, 2, 3, is certain from the fact that he quotes the 
very language. We now submit the testimony of Moses 
and Stephen in reply to the chronological argument of our 
opponents, based on Gen. 12. We will only remind the 
reader of the fact, that while our opponents base the spirit- 
ual covenant made with Abraham on Gen. 12, the word cov- 
enant does not occur in the chapter. 

We shall now undertake to prove, that the grammatical 
construction of Gal. 3 : 17, does not require us to belie.ve 
that God made any covenant, strictly speaking, with Abra- 
ham 430 years before the giving of the law. Let not the 
reader start lest we should come in collision with the apos- 
tle. The question is not, whether Paul's testimony is true, 
but whether our opponents understand his testimony. Did 
Paul mean to say that God made a covenant with Abraham 
just 430 years before the law ; this is the point at issue. 
We will now present this passage of Scripture first as it 
now reads ; and secondly, as it should read to make good 
grammar, supplying words understood to complete senten- 
ces. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 27 

Gal. 3: 17. "And this I say, that the covenant that 
was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was 
430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the 
promise of none effect." 

"And I say this, the law which was 430 years after (the 
promise) cannot disannul the covenant, which was before 
(the law) confirmed of God in Christ, that it should make 
the promise of none effect." 

1. In support of the above rendering, we will present the 
excellent remarks of Rev. John Reed, D. D., in reply to 
Rev. Daniel Merrill, Baptist. Mr. Reed, as a theologian 
and scholar stood high in the confidence of the Fathers of 
New England. He says "you have told us 'thai the cove- 
nant which cannot be made void, was 430 years before the 
law. 5 By fixing the date of the covenant at the very time 
when the promise was first made to Abraham, it evidently 
appears that you must mean the same thing by the covenant, 
which St. Paul meant by the promise. And although as we 
have observed, the promise and the covenant, were substan- 
tially the same ; yet in order to guard against mistakes very 
carefully, he retains the nominal and circumstantial distinc- 
tion ; and accordingly speaks of the covenant, which cannot 
he disannulled, and of the promise ichich cannot he made void. 
But, neglecting the Scripture language and substituting the 
word covenant in the room of the word promise, you have 
unhappily fallen into that very error, which he endeavored 
to prevent. 

"If the words of the 17th verse in the 3d chapter of Gal. 
were transposed as they ought to be, and the nomnative case 
placed before, and the objective case after the verb, accord- 
ing to the grammatical order of the English language, they 
would stand as follows : c And I say this, the law which was 
430 years after (the promise) cannot disannul the covenant 



28 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

which was before (the law) confirmed of God in Christ, that 
it should make the promise of none effect. 

" Two prepositions are mentioned in this text, but no words 
expressed in order to be governed by them. It is therefore 
necessary, if we would make good grammar, and good sense 
that two words should be understood ; and it is very easy to 
ascertain these words. The preposition after, evidently has 
reference to the promise, because the law was 430 years af- 
ter the promise. The preposition before, evidently has ref- 
erence to the law because the covenant was confirmed of 
God in Christ 406 years before the law. It was confirmed 
as we have observed by changing the name Abram to Abra- 
ham, and by affixing the token of circumcision and by the 
oath of God." (Reed's Apology, p. 66, 67.) 

The promises, therefore, preceded the covenant made with 
Abraham, yet formed the original elements, or basis of the 
covenant. Here is where our opponents have erred in rela- 
tion to two covenants ; they call the promise, the Abraham- 
ic covenant, as is evident from their using Gen. 12, to 
prove the existence of a spiritual covenant distinct from the 
covenant of circumcision. 

But our Baptist brethren maintain that God made two cov- 
enants with Abraham, one spiritual ; the other temporal, and 
the latter was made 24 years after the' former. They deny 
that the first covenant recorded in Gen. 12, promised the 
land of Canaan ; Or that the second covenant in Gen. 17, 
promised gospel blessings. Now these views are a necessary 
part of their system : For, if the covenant in Gen. 12, 
promised temporal blessings, then, there was no occasion for 
another covenant, consequently circumcision was the seal of a 
spiritual covenant ; or if the covenant of circumcision in Gen. 
17, promised the Messiah, and gospel blessings, then the 
sentiment is exploded, that God made a distinct covenant 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 29 

with Abraham found in Gen. 12. Now reader, a spiritual 
and temporal covenant must materially differ in their promi- 
ses and blessings. . We propose to compare the two cove- 
nants of our opponents and mark the agreement and disagree- 
ment that exists between them. But if an examination 
should prove that the supposed covenant in Gen. 12, promis- 
ed substantially the same blessings that were promised in 
Gen. 17 ; then it must follow that, either these promises all 
belong to the same covenant ; or God made two covenants 
with Abraham, both embracing the same object. Our oppo- 
nents may choose their dilemma. 

1. In Gen. 12, God promised Abraham, the land of Ca- 
naan, for a possession. Of course, our opponents deny this ; 
hence we will submit proof. Now reader " what saith the 
Lord" in the very first verse in this chapter ; " Get thee out 
of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's 
house, unto a land that I will show thee." If the reader has 
any doubt in relation to the promise of Canaan in this verse, 
let him turn again to Stephen's testimony, Acts 7 : I, 2, 3, 4, 
5, and particularly read the 5th verse : "And he gave him 
none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on ; 
Yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, 
and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child." 
That Stephen refers to Gen. 12, we have already shown. 
But we have positive evidence that God promised the land 
of Canaan to Abraham in the 7th verse of Gen. 12. " And 
the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, unto thy seed will 
I give this land" 

2. In Gen. 12 : 2, God says, " I will make of thee a 
great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great." 
This implies, that God would multiply and give him a nu- 
merous seed. 

3. In the 3d verse we find the promise of the Messiah, 



30 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

or gospel blessings. "In thee shall all families of the earth 
he blessed." This is the gospel preached unto Abraham, as 
Paul reasons in Gal. 3 : 8. 

We now invite attention to the covenant of circumcision, 
denominated by our opponents the temporal or worldly cov- 
enant that God made with Abraham. 

1. In Gen. 17 : 8, God promised Abraham and his seed 
the land of Canaan. " And I will give unto thee, and thy 
seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the 
land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. 5 ' Both cove- 
nants therefore, gave Abraham and his seed the land of Ca- 
naan, for an everlasting possession. 

2. Gen. 17 : 2, 6. God promised Abraham a nume- 
rous posterity. " And I will make my covenant between me 
and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly. And I will 
make thee exceeding fruitful, and will make nations of thee, 
and kings shall come out of thee." The reader will under- 
stand this promise as equivalent to the language in Gen. 
12 : 2. .. " I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless 
thee and make thy name great." 

3. Gen. 17 : 4, 5. God promised Abraham a numerous 
spiritual seal, or that he should be the father of believers in 
every age, and of all nations. " As for me behold my cove- 
nant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy 
name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I 
made thee." 

Now reader, our position is this ; the promise, " Thou shalt 
be a father of many nations," was the promise of a numerous 
spiritual seed, and consequently ^included the gospel of Jesus 
Christ. And if it included the gospel, it was equivalent to 
the promise in Gen. 12 : 3. " In thee shall all families 
of the earth be blessed." It would be strange indeed if God 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 31 

promised Abraham a numerous spiritual seed without the 
gospel. A covenant with such promises certainly must be a 
spiritual covenant ; and the seal of such a covenant must be 
a spiritual seal. 

We have already shown, that in the covenant of circum- 
cision, God required perfect obedience, and promised to be a 
11 God unto Abraham and his seed after him." If we now 
prove that this same covenant promised Abraham a spiritual 
seed, and constituted him the father of all believers in every 
age, and of all nations, then our argument will be complete, 
proving the sameness of the covenant that promised spiritual 
and temporal blessings. 

We now introduce the testimony of Paul, Rom. 4 : 16, 
17, 18. " Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, 
to the end the promise might be sure to the seed ; not to that 
only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith 
of Abraham, who is the fat Iter of us all, (as it is written, Gen. 
17 : 4, 5, £ 1 have made thee a father of many nations') be- 
fore him whom he believed even God who quickeneth the 
dead, and calleth those things which be not, as though they 
were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might 
become the father of many nations, according to that which 
was spoken, so shall thy seed be called." 

Paul therefore quotes the passage, "I have made thee a 
father of many nations," from Gen. 17, to prove that all be- 
lievers in Jesus Christ are the spiritual seed of Abraham. I 
ask then, if this promise does not relate to gospel blessings, 
and to all the nations of the earth % Or did the apostle Paul 
mistake the design and application of the promise ? 

We have now conclusively established the position, that 

the promise to Abraham, " Thou shalt be a father of many 

nations," related to the gospel, and consequently embraced the 

promised Messiah. This is evident from the fact, that Paul 

4 



82 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

quotes this very promise to prove Abraham the spiritual 
father of all true believers. But> perhaps some one will in- 
quire i Is it absolutely certain, that the promise to Abraham 
of a numerous spiritual seed, was a promise peculiar to the 
covenant of circumcision ? We will answer by quoting the 
language of Paul upon this very point. Rom. 4:11. " And 
he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteous- 
ness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; 
that he might be the father of all them that believe." Hence 
it appears, circumcision was to Abraham the seal or a spir- 
itual seed ; he is therefore the " father of us all." 

It would seem wholly unneccessary to multiply arguments 
to prove, that the promise in Gen. 17 : 4, " Thou shalt be 
a father of many nations," related to spiritual blessings, and 
embraced all the nations of the earth. But we wish to carry 
our opponents with us in our conclusions, as well as strengthen 
and confirm the weak. And to show that we are not pecu- 
liar or alone in our views upon this point, we will now call 
in the testimony of that distinguished man — one of the bright- 
est ornaments of the Baptist denomination, Andrew Fuller. 

Mr. Fuller says, " The first promise in this covenant is, 
that he shall be the father of many nations ; and as a token 
of it, his name in future is to be called Abraham. He had 
the name of a high, or eminent father from the beginning, 
but now it shall be more comprehensive, indicating a very 
large progeny. By the exposition given of this promise in 
the New Testament, (Rom. 4 : 16, 17,) we are directed 
to understand it not only of those who sprang from Abraham's 
body, though these were many nations, but also of all that 
should be of the faith of Abraham. It went to make him 
the father of the church of God in all future ages. Or as 
the apostle calls him, the heir of the world. In this view he 
is the father of many, even of a multitude of nations. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 33 

All that the Christian world enjoys, or ever will enjoy, it is 
indebted for, to Abraham and his seed. A high honor this, to 
be the father of the faithful, the stock from which the Messiah 
should spring, and on which the church of God should grow. 
It was this honor that Esau despised when he sold his birth- 
right ; and here lay the profaneness of that act, which in- 
volved a contempt of the most sacred of all objects — the 
Messiah and his everlasting kingdom." See Expos, of Gen. 
17, vol. 1, p. 774. 

Mr. Fuller was not a believer in Infant Baptism. But 
still as a profound reasoner, he had too much discernment to 
overlook the spiritual character and design of the covenant 
of circumcision : and happy would it be for the denomination 
to which he belonged, if they generally entertained the same 
consistent views. But our Baptist brethren are prone to re- 
gard the covenant of circumcision, as a transaction of com- 
paratively little importance to the Christian world. And 
such indeed it would be, provided their theory of two cove- 
nants was true. But with Abraham, the day God ratified 
this covenant was probably the most important day in the 
history of his life. And so important in the mind of God, 
that it was deemed the most proper time to change the name 
of Abram, and Sarai to more significantly express the extent, 
and richness of the Divine covenant, with its provisions and 
promises. On this day God adds the seal to his covenant, 
and gives the promise " Thou shalt be a father of many na- 
tions." Abram's name, therefore must be Abraham — high 
or eminent father, for he shall be the father of all believers. 
Sarai, notwithstanding the darkness of her prospects, shall 
yet be the mother of the promised heir, through whom, Mes- 
siah, the Prince of Life, and King of Zion, shall descend ; her 
name, therefore must be Sarah, a princess — a meet compan- 



34 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

ion for the eminent father of believers, in every age and na- 
tion. 

Perhaps it is proper in this connection to offer a single 
reason why many mistake, or overlook the spiritual charac- 
ter of the promise in Gen. 17. Several reasons ?night*be 
offered, but we will select the most charitable one for our 
reader. The practice of expressing the same sentiment in 
different language, is as ancient as the Bible. Now this is 
true in relation to the Abrahamic covenant, and its promi- 
ses ; the language is frequently varied while the sentiment 
is the same. In Gen. 12 r 3, we read, u In thee shall 
all families of the earth be blessed." But in Gen. 17, God 
says, " Thou shalt be a father of many nations." Both 
promises present the idea, that the nations of the earth shall 
be blessed through Abraham. 

We will further illustrate this point by quoting the exam- 
ples where God repeats the promise to Abraham, of spiritual 
or gospel blessings. In Gen. 12 : 3, God says, " In thee 
shall all families of the earth be blessed." But in Gen. 18 : 
8, we read, " All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in 
him, i. e., Abraham." While in Gen. 22 : 18, God leaves 
out Abraham and says, " And in thy seed shall all the na- 
tions of the earth be blessed." Now are we to infer because 
the language differs in every instance, therefore different 
blessings were promised ? Or shall we conclude that all 
these repeated promises were so many different Covenants ? 
Every intelligent reader of the Bible, knows that nothing is 
more common, than for sacred writers to use great liberty in 
varying the language of Scripture, provided they retain the 
substance. New Testament writers sometimes quote from 
the Old, with so little regard to words and even sentences, 
that it is difficult to find the original text. Even the Moral 
Law, repeated in Deut. 5, is materially changed in its phrase- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 35 

ology. But are we hence to infer that God gave Moses 
two Moral Laws ? If so, why not call one temporal, and the 
other a spiritual law ! 

Bible View. 

Abraham was not only the servant of God, but also the 
"friend, of God," hence on terms of peculiar intimacy with 
God. Abraham had no Bible to consult in relation to faith 
and practice. God was to him in one sense, what the Bible 
is to us — the daily Expositor of his own will. He therefore 
visited Abraham frequently to make known duty, and inform 
him in relation to his own purposes of mercy and grace re- 
specting himself — his seed, and the nations of the earth. As 
the Bible, for the encouragement and consolation of saints, 
promises, and repeats the promise on almost every divine 
page ; so God in his interviews with his friend Abraham, 
not only promised, but renewed and repeated over and over 
again those promises. Hence we find that the promise of 
a numerous posterity is made and repeated no less than sev- 
en times. See Gen. 12 : 2—13 : 16—15 : 5—17 : 2—18 : 
18—21 : 13—22 : 17. So the promise of the land of Ca- 
naan is made and repeated five times. See Gen. 12 : 1, 7 — 
13: 15 — 15: 7 — 17: 8. And the promise of spiritual 
blessings — that in Abraham and his seed all the families and 
nations of the earth should be blessed, is made and repeated 
four times. See Gen. 12 : 3—17 : 4—18 : 18—22 : 8. 

Now are all these promises, made and repeated, so many 
covenants % There is the same evidence of seven covenants 
that there is of two, viz. a repetition of the same blessings, in 
somewhat different language ? Why not, on this principle 
of interpretation make out a covenant for each particular 
specified blessing; if it is necessary to have one covenant 

for the temporal, and another for the spiritual ? Why not 
4* 



36 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

have a covenant for the promise of a numerous posterity ? 
and another for the promise of a great name % Let consis- 
tency answer. 

We now invite the attention of our reader to a few simple 
facts in connection with the history of the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, and which will illustrate the Bible view of this whole 
subject, and the only view that harmonizes with Scripture, 
and is consistent with itself. And this view of the subject 
presents precisely such a train of events, as we might sup- 
pose attendant, in the age of Abraham, and under all the pe- 
culiar circumstances, upon the giving of the covenant 
of circumcision. 

1. In Gen. 12 : 1, 2, 3, we find recorded God's promise 
to Abraham in connection with the call to leave his country 
and go to a land that God would show him. This occurred 
while Abraham was in Mesopotamia, and before he dwelt 
in Haran. Nothing however is said about a covenant, nor 
does the word occur in the chapter. Here then is the pro- 
mise. 

2. In Gen. 15 : 18, we find God's covenant with Abra- 
ham, 'fin that same day the Lord made a covenant with 
Abram." &c. On this occasion God gave Abraham a sign, 
but no seal to the covenant. This sign was a symbol of 
the divine presence passing between the divided sacrifices 
which Abraham had prepared. 

3. In Gen. 17, the seal of the covenant was added, 
which consisted in the rite of circumcision. 

4. In Gen. 22 : 16, the covenant is confirmed with an 
oath. The offering up of Isaac was the crowning act of 
obedience in the life of Abraham : God therefore signified s 
his approbation by adding the oath to the covenant. 

Here then we have the whole transaction before us in the 
order of Bible history. 1. The promise. 2. The cove- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 37 

nant without the seal. 3. The covenant with the seal. 4. 
The oath of confirmation. This view of the subject resembles 
some business transaction between two men. 1. They 
meet, talk over the matter, and mutually promise. 2. They 
meet again and draw writings. 3. The contract is signed 
and sealed. 4. The oath is added if necessary. Now ihe 
contract is " ordered in all things and sure." See Jer. 32 : 
6—12. 

Now if the reader will take his Bible and turn to Luke 1 : 
72, 73, he_ will find that Zacharias, when filled with God's 
spirit gave this same view of the covenant. He declares, 
that God fulfilled what prophets revealed, in sending his Son 
" To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to re- 
member his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our 
father Abraham." 

We find that the inspired writers not only apply the prom- 
ise, covenant and oath to spiritual blessings as the fruits of 
this covenant, but also to temporal blessings, thus proving 
that they recognized no such distinction of two covenants as 
is now maintained by our opponents. For example, Ps. 105 : 
8, 9, 10, 11, " He hath remembered his covenant, the 
word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which 
covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac, 
and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and unto Israel 
for an everlasting covenant, saying, unto thee will I give 
the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance." That the 
promise and oath of God pertained to the covenant that em- 
braced the Messiah, our opponents admit. We may then 
inquire, did God confirm two covenants with an oath ? Or 
does the oath apply to one and the same covenant, whether 
temporal or spiritual blessings be mentioned ? The latter 
is the only consistent view, and as we maintain the Bible 
view of this subject. 



38 constitution op the 

Covenants: Plural. 

There is one fact of some importance, to which we call 
attention, before dismissing the position that God made but 
one covenant with Abraham, and that a spiritual covenant. 
When the inspired writers speak of God's covenant with 
Abraham, it is always in the singular number, covenant, an 
never covenants. 

The plural form cannot be found in connection with any- 
thing Abraham ever did. And yet our opponents inform us, 
that God made two great covenants with Abraham, the first 
respected the salvation of the world, and the second, the rise, 
progress, power and glory of the mightiest nation on earth. 
That such should be the fact, and still the word covenants 
never occur in the history of events peculiar to the life of 
Abraham, certainly must be a phenomenon in history. 

But our opponents inform us that the plural, " covenants, 5 ' 
is found in the New Testament connected with the history 
of " the fathers" and probably alludes to the two covenants 
which God made with Abraham. True, the word covenants 
occurs three times in the New Testament ; but that it refers 
to two covenants made with Abraham, is what we deny ; and 
as our opponents assume this point, the labor of proof properly 
belongs to them. But lest the reader's mind should be in 
suspense, waiting for the evidence, we propose an examina- 
tion of those passages. Before looking at those passages, 
we wish to call attention to two or three facts in relation to 
covenants made with Israel as a nation. 

God gave the nation two important covenants. The first 
was the Abrahamic covenant ; and the other was the Sinaic 
covenant, some 400 years after. The first was the con- 
stitution and charter of the church and nation, and by it 
Abraham and his seed entered into covenant relation with 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 39 

God. While the other embraced the legal dispensation, 
and was added when the nation had become sufficiently pow- 
erful and numerous to possess Canaan, and maintain those 
rites and ceremonies, which in an important sense constitut- 
ed the means of grace in the church, previous to the Mes- 
siah's coming. 

These two covenants were public, formal transactions, 
embracing the posterity of Abraham, with servants and pro- 
selytes — all who were included in the nation. The reader 
will not understand us as denying that other things are 
called covenants, for example, the Sabbath, Ex. 31 : 16 ; 
but as maintaining that these were the two great covenants 
of the nation. 

We are now prepared to examine those passages of Scrip- 
ture in the New Testament which speaks o£ covenants, plu- 
ral, and which our opponents employ to prove that God 
made two covenants with Abraham. 

1. Gal. 4 : 24, " Which things are an allegory : for 
these are the two covenants ; the one from the Mount Sinai, 
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Here then, 
the view we have just given in relation to two covenants, is 
abundantly confirmed by the apostle. First: there were 
two covenants. Mark the language of the apostle, Bl These 
are the two covenants," as if there were but two covenants 
peculiar to the nation. Second : *< One from the Mount 
Sinai," therefore could not have been made with Abraham, 
because he had been dead more than 300 years. The other 
covenant was made with Abraham, as the connection clear- 
ly proves, and was the charter of spiritual blessings to. all the 
nations of the earth. The covenant " from Mount Sinai 
gendereth to bondage;" by which the Apostle means to 
represent, that the rites and ceremonies, the sacrifices, of- 
ferings and oblations of the legal dispensation, all pointing 



40 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

to purity, and typical of spiritual blessings, constituted a 
" yoke heavy to be borne." 

The covenant on Sinai received its fulfillment in the com- 
ing, suffering, and death of Jesus Christ ; hence ceased to 
be obligatory. While the Abrahamic covenant, on which 
the church was founded, and which promised blessings to all 
nations, must continue in force until the promise is realized 
by all concerned or contemplated. With these facts, let the 
candid reader decide whether both covenants related to 
Abraham. 

2. In the next place, we invite attention to Rom. 9 : 4, 
" W r ho are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, and 
the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the law, and 
the service of God, and the promises." 

Now, reader, does Paul mean to inform us in this place, 
that God made two covenants with Abraham ? No : he 
simply states that the adoption, glory, covenants, giving of 
the la A', service of God, and promises, pertains or belonged 
to his brethren and kinsmen, who were Israelites. A small 
foundation indeed, for a weighty argument. We might leave 
our opponents to prove what they assume, were we disposed 
to ease the labor of our own hands. But in this case, we 
prefer exposing the groundlessness of their assumption. 

(1.) W T e have already shown, that God gave the Israelites 
the Sinaic as well as Abrahamic covenant. In the lan- 
guage of the apostle then, we might say, " These are the 
two covenants, one from the Mount Sinai." Let our oppo- 
nents disapprove it. 

(2.) This argument proves too much. It assumes that the 
covenants pertaining to Israel, were all made with Abraham. 
This is contrary to acknowledged facts. 

(3.) It must be evident to the careful reader, that the apos- 
tle is speaking in this connection of spiritual blessings and 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 41 

privileges. But our opponents maintain that one of the 

covenants with Abraham, was a temporal, or worldly cove- 
nant. If so, would the apostle place it in the list of spiritual 

blessings ? 

But it is unnecessary to multiply arguments in opposition 
to mere assumptions. . Minds confirmed by the latter, will 
not appreciate the former, however conclusive. 

3. The last passage occurs in Eph. 2 : 12, "That at that 
time ye (Gentiles) were without Christ, being aliens from 
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the cove- 
nants of promise." It will be remembered, that while our op- 
ponents maintain that God made two covenants with Abraham, 
they also argue that one was a temporal covenant. Now if 
the apostle in this text refers to covenants made with Abra- 
ham, then he must include the worldly covenant. But what 
had the Ephesians to do with this worldly covenant ? Did 
embracing Jesus Christ interest them in the land of Canaan? 
Now if the language of the apostle means any thing, it im- 
plies that by embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ, the 
Ephesians had become personally interested in the " cove- 
nants of promise" which were peculiar to the Israelites, and 
to which the Ephesians once were strangers. Now from 
the reasoning of the apostle, one of two things must be true : 
Either the Ephesians by faith in Christ, were constituted 
fellow-heirs with the Israelites to their covenanted temporal 
blessings ; or Paul had no allusion to more than one cove- 
nant made with Abraham. If our opponents say the former 
was true, then the temporal covenant made with Abraham 
required gospel faith, as the condition of an interest in the 
land of Canaan, therefore the covenant of circumcision in- 
cluded the Messiah. Either position is fatal to the argument 
which our opponents endeavor to build upon this text, in fa- 
vor of two covenants made with Abraham ; And in kindness 



42 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

we would add, the effort to prove two covenants from this pas- 
sage of Scripture, indicates an extreme famine of materials 
for argument ! 

Temporal Blessings. 

But why is the covenant of circumcision denominated a 
temporal covenant % The reader cannot fail to discover, that 
if this is the only covenant God gave the Abrahamic church, 
then the covenant relation of children is an established fact. 
Hence the toil to set aside the spiritual character of this co- 
venant. 

We will now pay some attention to the promise of the 
land of Canaan, and see if this promise is so fatal to the spi- 
ritual character of this covenant. 1. If the promise of Ca- 
naan, or temporal blessings, is evidence that the covenant is 
temporal, and not spiritual, then the same argument proves 
that the gospel is a mere temporal system, because it promi- 
ses temporal blessings. That the gospel promises temporal 
blessings, is susceptible of the clearest proof. Matt. 6 : 33. 
" But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteous- 
ness, and all these things shall be added unto you." The 
things to be added, are the temporal blessings, which the 
Gentiles seek after. But take another passage, 1 Tim. 4 : 8, 
" But godliness is profitable unto all things having the prom- 
ise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." 
Here then the promises of the gospel extend to both time 
and eternity. 

Mark 10: 29, 30. "There is no man that hath left 
house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, 
or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel's, but he 
shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 43 

brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, 
with persecution; and in the world to come, eternal life." 

Here then, the disciple who makes sacrifice for Christ and 
the gospel, enjoys the promise of an hundred-fold in this 
world. Does this promise of temporal blessings vitiate the 
spiritual character of the gospel % It is absurd to talk of any 
covenant with the church, which makes no promises or pro- 
visions, touching the temporal circumstances and wants of 
God's people ! That man's moral vision is truly obscure, 
who sees no promise in the word of God upon which to rest, 
when he approaches the mercy-seat with his temporal wants 
and circumstances. 

2. But there was a peculiar urgency and necessity for 
the promise of Canaan to Abraham and his seed — a necessi- 
ty that can be overlooked, only by the superficial. Abra- 
ham and his seed were ordained to be a " chosen generation — 
a peculiar people — a holy nation." How could this be ac- 
complished without separating them from corruption and idol- 
atry, common to all the nations of the earth ! How could 
the service of the Temple, the rites and sacrifices of their re- 
ligion be maintained without constituting them a distinct and 
separate nation ; and as a nation they must have a country ; 
God therefore gave them Canaan, the lot of their inheritance, 
for an everlasting possession. Even in our day, and after the 
gospel has reduced our system of worship to the most beau- 
tiful simplicity, separate church organization is indispensable 
to the maintenance of even the form of godliness. Yet 
some do not seem to understand the necessity for the tempo- 
ral promises and provisions in God's holy covenant ; hence 
demand two covenants because one promised the land of Ca- 
naan ! ! 

3. We have already observed that the temporal blessings 
covenanted to Abraham and his posterity, were essential to 

5l 



44 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

the fulfillment of the spiritual promise. Hence the seed of 
Abraham were not permitted to dwell in Canaan, until they 
were sufficiently numerous and powerful to conquer and pos- 
sess the land and maintain that system of worship which God 
instituted after they left Egypt To suppose that God gave 
them the land of Canaan simply to better their temporal 
circumstances, or to distinguish them for national power 
and greatness, is both inconsistent with reason, and deroga- 
tory to the character of God. When and where has God 
manifested so much concern for man's temporal interest as 
to ordain a covenant to advance or secure his worldly inter- 
est ! 

But that God should call in the temporal to subserve and 
advance the spiritual, looks wise and benevolent, and is hon- 
orable to the Divine administration. This in fact, is the 
great design and end of temporal blessings. 

But reader, we are not left to speculation upon this subject. 
No: Revelation sheds its light upon our position. God 
brought his ancient Israel into the land of Canaan, that he 
might fulfill, or consummate his holy covenant made with 
his servants. This is our position. Deut. 7 : 6, 7, 8, " For 
thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. The Lord 
thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, 
above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The 
Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you because 
ye were more in numbers than any people, (for ye were the 
fewest of all people,) but because the Lord loved you, and 
because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto 
your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty 
hand and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen from the 
hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Here, in language most 
conclusive, it is affirmed that God chose the nation of Israel 
for himself, to be a holy people. The land of Canaan was 



ABRAHAMJC CHURCH. 45 

to the Israelites an earthly sanctuary, where they might 
maintain the ordinances of their religion unmolested, and in 
their greatest purity. Hence, after the giving of the moral, 
ceremonial and judicial codes, we find the nation addressed 
repeatedly in relation to their enlarged duties and responsi- 
bilities when in possession of the promised inheritance. For 
example, Deut. 6: 1, " Now these are the commandments, 
(moral law) the statutes, (ceremonial law) and the judg- 
ments, (judicial law) which the Lord your God commanded 
to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye 
go to possess it." In the 8th chap. 18th verse, we read, 
M But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God ; for it is he 
that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish 
his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers as it is this 
day." We repeat the remark, the possession of the land 
of Canaan, was God's own method of separating the seed of 
Abraham from the idolatry and corruption common to all 
the nations of the earth, and of maintaining their national 
distinction, that they might be a chosen people, a holy na- 
tion. 

But were the Scriptures silent upon this point, one fact 
■alone should convince the most skeptical that our view is the 
Bible view. Obedience to God was the tenure by which Is- 
rael held possession of the promised land. In fact the diso- 
bedience and unbelief of the generation that left Egypt, for- 
ever excluded them from Canaan. For disobedience God 
sent famine, pestilence and war ; they were subjected by 
their enemies, and sent into captivity. These are Bible facts, 
too numerous to need proof or admit of discussion. 

We have now passed over the general argument in sup- 
port of our position, that " the covenant of circumcision was 
a spiritual covenant, and the only covenant God ever made 
with Abraham." We cheerfully submit the evidence, and 
P 



46 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

only ask an impartial verdict. We now invite attention to 
our next position. 

Circumcision. 

Circumcision was a spiritual rite, had a spiritual significa- 
tion, and referred to spiritual blessings. 

The seal of the covenant must accord with the design of 
the covenant itself. That the covenant should embrace one 
thing and its seal contemplate something else, would be indeed, 
a strange mixture of design in the same general transaction. 
The argument therefore, to prove the spiritual character and 
design of the covenant, must also go to establish the spiritual 
character and design of its seal. The two are inseparable 
and must contemplate substantially the same great end, as 
really so, as the seal of a legal instrument confirms the de- 
sign of the instrument itself. 

Significancy of Circumcision. 

Men frequently render Divine ordinances insignificant and 
even contemptible, by mistaken and perverted views of such 
ordinances. This has been emphatically true in relation to 
the rite of circumcision. Hence its application and design 
has been not unfrequently, a matter of speculation and even 
ridicule with the ignorant. And is it strange that multitudes 
should fail to discover wisdom and significancy in the appli- 
cation of this seal of God's covenant, when such men as 
Messrs. Booth, Cox, and others, teach that circumcision was 
"A sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and 
a token of interest in those temporal blessings that were 
promised." Reader, is this all God intended by this bloody 
rite ? 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 47 

Viewed in its true Scriptural design, circumcision was 
richly significant and instructive ; and expressed sentiments 
vastly important to the church of God, previous to the com- 
ing of Messiah. 

1. Its application pointed to Christ, as the seed of Abra- 
ham, " As concerning the flesh," Christ descended from 
Abraham, thus fulfilling the Divine promise, " In thy seed shall 
all the nations of the earth be blessed." There is no earthly 
reason why circumcision should be a mark of descent, of na- 
tional distinction, and of interest in Canaan. God could have 
given a sign embracing these objects less delicate and more 
obvious. But nothing could more significantly refer to Mes- 
siah as the seed of Abraham, than the rite of circumcision. 
The covenant of God with Abraham promised the Messiah, 
and the seal of that covenant was a standing memorial that 
the promise in due time should be fulfilled. 

2. Asa bloody -rite, circumcision pointed to the remission of 
sins through Jesus Christ, and consequently taught the necessity 
of a moral change, or change of heart. Hence we read of the 
circumcision of the heart ; Deut. 30 : 6, " And the Lord 
thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, 
to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, that 
thou mayest live." What was this circumcision of heart, 
but regeneration, and consequent obedience to God. 

3. That circumcision was a spiritual rite, had a spiritual 
signification, and referred to spiritual blessings, must be evi- 
dent from the fact, that without obedience to God, circumcis- 
ion was a nullity—or useless. Rom. 2 : 25, "For circum- 
cision verily profiteth if thou keep the law ; but if thou be 
a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcis- 
ion." 

By keeping the law, the apostle certainly did not mean 
that perfect legal obedience was necessary to secure the ben- 
5* 



48 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

efits of circumcision : for that would imply that all who had 
been profited by circumcision were perfect \ or none had 
ever been profited. But he did mean, that to be profited by 
circumcision, men must experience in their hearts and exem- 
plify in their lives the thing intended and signified by cir- 
cumcision : And to show the utter fallacy of all hopes bas- 
ed upon the mere outward rite of circumcision, he declares 
that without such obedience circumcision is a nullity — uncir- 
cumcision. 

4. The apostle expressly declares that circumcision is a 
spiritual rite, and refers to a work of grace in the heart. 
Rom. 2 : 28, 29, a For he is not a Jew which is one out- 
wardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in 
the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and cir- 
cumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let- 
ter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God." 

I know not how the apostle could have more fully express- 
ed the spiritual character and design of the rite of circumcis- 
ion. He affirms that the mere outward act, in the flesh, 
does not constitute circumcision, i. e., does not answer 
what is signified, and is of no avail without circumcision of 
heart ; and that even a Jew, who has received the mere out- 
ward rite, without experiencing inwardly the thing signified, 
is not a Jew in the proper sense, because he, does not live 
out his covenant relations. 

Now reader, did the apostle believe that circumcision was 
a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and 
a token of interest in the temporal blessings that God prom- 
ised to Abraham % Would not circumcision outwardly, in 
the flesh be a sign of carnal descent, and a mark of nation- 
al distinction, and token of interest in temporal blessings ? 
How utterly at variance are such speculations with the 
teachings of God's spirit. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 49 

5. We prove the spiritual character and design of circum- 
cision by showing the spiritual benefits and blessings that it 
conferred upon those that received the rite. Rom. 3 : 1, 2, 
" What advantage then hath the Jew, or what profit is 
there of circumcision. Much every way ; chiefly because 
unto them were committed the oracles of God." 

Here then we have a question, that brings out the apostle 
to speak of the benefits of circumcision. The reader will ob- 
serve that the profit of circumcision is equivalent to the ad- 
vantage of the Jew. The reason is obvious ; the covenant 
of circumcision was the charter of all that distinguished Is- 
rael, as God's covenant people. Hence when the apostle 
speaks of the distinguished privileges of his countrymen, the 
Jews, he mentions those privileges as synonymous with the 
blessings of circumcision. 

But let us attend to the question before us, with the answer 
of the apostle. "What advantage then hath the Jew, and 
what profit is there of circumcision ? Answer : Much every 
way ; chiefly because unto them (Jews) were committed the 
oracles of God ;" i. e., the sacred, inspired writings — the Old 
Testament. Hence the " Law and the prophets," the knowl- 
edge and worship of the true God, was the chief blessing of 
circumcision. A richer gift, God never bestowed on any 
people, Jews or Gentiles, than to give his Bible with the re- 
ligion it inculcates, as their religion. 

But what say our opponents to the question, "What profit is 
there of circumcision V Why, the chief profit of the cove- 
nant of circumcision wasthe land of Canaan. Extreme lib- 
erality could only give temporal blessings as the chief benefit 
of a worldly covenant. 

6. Another argument in support of our position, that "cir- 
cumcision was a spiritual rite, had a spiritual signification, 
and referred to spiritual blessings," we derive from the fact, 



50 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

circumcision was to Abraham a seal or pledge of spiritual 
blessings. Rom. 4 : 11, " And he (Abraham) received the 
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
which he had, yet being uncircumcised that he might be the 
father of all them that believe, though they be not circum- 
cised." 

Now if Abraham received the sign of circumcision, that 
he might be the father of all believers, then circumcision was 
to Abraham, the seal of a spiritual seed, as well as the seal 
of the righteousness of faith ; could the character and de- 
sign of circumcision be temporal, while it sealed such bles- 
sings to the father of believers ? Or was it the seal of a mere 
worldly covenant, that did not embrace evangelical religion ? 

Before dismissing this branch of our subject we wish to 
call attention to a few facts and reasons, confirming our po- 
sition in relation to the spiritual character and design of the 
covenant of circumcision, which we could not so conveniently 
introduce in the connected chain of Scriptural argument we 
have endeavored to present. We leave our reader to decide 
upon their relevancy, and give them just weight and mea- 
sure. 

Facts and Reasons* 

In the discussion of any subject, few things are more essen- 
tial, than to keep prominently before the mind the real points 
at issue. This we have endeavored to do, by repeatedly giv- 
ing the substance of our proposition, and the opposing views 
of our opponents. Our general proposition now under dis- 
cussion affirms, that " circumcision was the seal of a spiritual 
covenant, and the initiatory rite into the true visible church 
of God." Our opponents maintain in opposition to this, that 
the covenant of circumcision was a temporal, worldly cove- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 51 

nant ; and that the great design and end of the covenant, was 
the conveyance of temporal blessings to Abraham and his 
natural posterity. The rite of circumcision was a sign of 
carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and a token 
of interest in the temporal blessings promised to Abraham. 
Of course those among our opponents who dissent from these 
views, we claim as allies, just so far as they agree with us. 
We have already considered to some extent the spiritual 
character and design of the covenant and rite of circumcis- 
ion. We now submit our facts and reasons. 

1. We would now ask the candid, did ihe covenant of 
circumcision require obedience to God, in all things, or only 
in one thing, i. e., circumcision ? If in all things, then no 
covenant could require more ; therefore no other covenant 
was necessary or admissible. But if this covenant required 
obedience simply in one thing — circumcision, then the vilest 
wretch could fulfill all the conditions of the covenant, and 
consequently, have as strong and just claims to the prom- 
ised blessings, as the most devout and humble worshipper of 
God ! 

But the spirit of God has decided, that circumcision with- 
out obedience was a nullity. Rom. 2 : 25, " For circumcis- 
ion verily profiteth if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a 
breaker of the law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." 
Reader, did the covenant of circumcision bind x\braham and 
his seed to love and serve the true God ? 

2. Would the sincere, truth-loving God make a temporal 
or worldly covenant with a people, wherein mere external 
obedience was required as the condition of blessings ? Obe- 
dience with the heart, is all God ever required of any people. 
But mere external conformity, without the heart, God nev- 
er accepted from any one — it is hypocrisy. Reader, think 
of the gross inconsistency ! The pure God, ordaining, a 



52 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

worldly covenant, promising temporal blessings, and all con- 
ditional upon compliance with an external rite. 

3. It was almost 500 years after God made the covenant 
with Abraham, before the seed of Abraham possessed Ca- 
naan ; tens of thousands, who had received the seal of the 
covenant never saw Canaan. One whole generation perish- 
ed in the wilderness, as a punishment for their unbelief. And 
yet our opponents inform us, that the land of Canaan was one 
of the chief blessings of this covenant — yes, circumcision was 
a token of interest in Canaan ! We leave those most inter- 
ested to reconcile these facts with their position. 

4. The Jews made proselytes from other nations. They 
were exceedingly zealous in making proselytes, as our Sa- 
viour shows, when he declares that they would "Compass 
sea and land to make one proselyte. 5 ' Circumcision was in- 
dispensable, and there could be no male proselyte without 
submitting to the rite. Now we would ask, did the Jews 
make proselytes to their land, and temporal blessings: or to 
their religion ? Did each proselyte take upon himself the 
vows of God, and bind himself to the worship and service of 
God forever ? Let reason answer. 

Again ; whenever a Jew bought a male servant, he must 
be circumcised. But did that constitute him an heir to the 
land of Canaan ? Glorious bondage ! worthy of patriarchal 
days ; a subjection that elevated the servant to an equality 
with the original heir of the soil. But reader, the simple 
fact that Abraham and his seed were set apart as a holy na- 
tion, and therefore every servant must enter into covenant 
with God, explains this matter infinitely better, than that 
hazy speculation that ascribes to God's covenant a character 
it never bore, and a design it never contemplated. 

6. From Acts 21 : 20, 21, it is certain that multitudes of 
the believing Jews continued, for a time, to circumcise their 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 53 

children, and also insisted that the believing Gentiles should 
circumcise their children. Now, did the believing Jews urge 
circumcision as a religious rite 1 Or as necessary to consti- 
tute the Gentiles fellow-heirs with themselves to the land of 
Canaan ? 

Did they consider circumcision, a sign of carnal descent, 
a mark of national distinction, and a token of interest in cer- 
tain temporal blessings, and still urge the Gentiles to practice 
it ? Did embracing the Lord Jesus Christ, involve, in their 
opinion, the duty of coming under this temporal covenant ! 
But on the ground that the Jews considered the covenant of 
circumcision the charter of their spiritual blessings, it is very 
easy to understand, why they should insist, that Gentiles be- 
lieving in their Messiah, and sharing their spiritual blessings, 
must also receive the seal of their covenant. 

7. One of the most popular and common arguments of 
our opponents is, that circumcision was " identified with the 
law of Moses," and was a part of the ceremonial dispensation, 
therefore was done away by the coming of Christ/' Hence 
they argue, that God gave the church a "new covenant," 
under the gospel dispensation. 

Now reader, this argument is fatal to all their efforts to 
prove the covenant of circumcision, a temporal covenant ; 
unless they can also prove, that the law of Moses, and conse- 
quently the whole ceremonial dispensation was temporal in 
its character and design ; and even then, there are difficul- 
ties insuperable, and fatal to their theory. 

1. How could the coming of Christ affect a worldly cove- 
nant when it had no relation to him ? Did the coming of 
Christ render null and void, the divine contract, which gave 
Israel the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ? 
Did the coming of Christ abolish the mark of national dis- 
tinction, and the sign of carnal descent ; so that" the seed of 



54 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

Abraham were no longer to be a separate nation, or the nat- 
ural descendants of their illustrious sire, God's ancient friend 1 
Strange indeed ! 

2. But how happened it, that the bloody rite of circumcis- 
ion, the seal of a temporal covenant, found a place among 
the bloody rites and sacrifices of that ceremonial, which had 
its fulfillment in the suffering and death of that Saviour, who 
was God's Lamb — slain a sacrifice for sin ? If we take the 
position of our opponents, that the covenant of circumcision, 
was a temporal covenant, mystery and darkness multiply as 
we advance with this important train of reflections, and no 
solution is even plausible or probable. Must we embrace 
such a system ? No. 

But reader, the views we have presented in relation to the 
covenant of circumcision, when applied to this same subject, 
are harmonious, and consonant with reason and Scripture. 
We maintain that the covenant of circumcision was a spirit- 
ual covenant, and the rite of circumcision, by its application 
showed that "as concerning the flesh Christ" should be of 
the seed of Abraham, and as a bloody rite, it pointed to the 
remission of sins, through Jesus Christ, as did also the bloody 
rites and sacrifices of the ceremonial law. 

Hence, when Jesus Christ, the promised seed came, and of- 
ferred himself, the sacrifice for sin, bloody rites, that had long 
typified this event, were fulfilled and consequently ceased 
to be obligatory. Circumcision therefore had its fulfillment 
in the coming of Christ, both with respect to the seed of 
Abraham and the shedding of blood. 

But a serious defect in the reasoning of our opponents is 
discovered in this fact ; They conclude that the covenant is 
done away, because the seal is fulfilled. Reader, must not 
the covenant itself be fulfilled, before it is done away ? It 
promised, that Abraham should be the father of all believers, 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 55 

and in him and his seed all the nations of the earth should be 
blessed. Has this been all fulfilled ? The argument of our 
opponents under this head, goes to charge upon God a viola- 
tion of compact, i. e., of doing away his covenant before his 
promise has been performed. That covenant was not only- 
sealed, but also confirmed by the oath of God, 

The altering or changing of the seal does not necessarily 
change in substance, or do away the constitution of the 
church, any more than changing the seal of the State of New 
York, would change or do away the constitution and laws of 
the State. The object of the seal and oath is to confirm the 
promise, and not to create the promise. The seal of circum- 
cision added no new promises to the covenant, although 
beautifully significant of blessings promised. When there- 
fore the Son of God came, and by the sacrifice of himself 
fulfilled the bloody ritual, the blessings of God's covenant 
continued to flow in the direction of the Divine promise, and 
new memorials sealed and signified what had been signifi- 
ed by blood, before the great atonement. 

This view of the covenant of circumcision not only ex* 
plains why the rite of circumcision should cease when the 
ceremonial law was fulfilled, but also answers some labored 
objections against the spiritual character of circumcision, be- 
cause Paul declares it necessary to keep the law if circumcis- 
ed. Gal. 5 : 2, 3, " Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be 
circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify 
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor 
to do the whole law." But what law does the Apostle refer 
to 1 If the moral law, then the covenant of circumcision 
required sinless obedience. Did God promise Abraham and 
his seed blessings upon this condition ? But if the Apostle 
refers to the ceremonial law, then he understood the covenant 
and rile of circumcision as we do, as referring to Christ and 
6 



56 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

gospel blessings ; hence to rely upon bloody rites, that point- 
ed out a Saviour to come, would be a virtual denial that he 
had come. If therefore the Galatians insisted upon circum- 
cision, which referred to Christ, yet to come, they must go 
back to the ceremonial law, for they were debtors to that 
law until Christ actually came. 

But this argument also reflects fatally upon the theory of 
our opponents : If circumcision belonged with the ritual law, 
then it as certainly referred to Christ, as did any victim on 
Jewish alters slain. Let our opponents avoid the conclusion. 

Perhaps it is due, to make a remark in relation to the con- 
nection of circumcision with the ceremonial law. Some 
seem to reason as if circumcision was instituted at the same 
time, and constituted a part of the ceremonial law. Against 
this mistake the Saviour carefully guarded his hearers. John 
7 : 22, " Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision (not 
because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and ye on the Sab- 
bath day circumcise a man." Now circumcision' was not of 
Moses, it was instituted more than 400 years before the cer- 
emonial law, when Abraham and his seed were set apart to the 
service of God. It was never 'recorded as a part of the cere- 
monial law. It was a bloody rite administered but once upon 
he same subject ; requiring human blood gave it more solemn 
importance than any other bloody rite. True, it found a place 
among Jewish rituals, as it necessarily must, being obliga- 
tory upon the nation. 

We have now presented our Scripture argument, and our 
facts and reasons in support of the Scriptural character and 
design of the covenant and rite of circumcision. We have 
many more things to say, but it must be introduced in the 
progress of our argument as collateral, while we now invite 
attention to our third position, under the first head. 



abrahamic church. 57 

Initiation of Members. 

3. The rite of circumcision, was the rite of initiation into 
the true visible church of God. 

Little need be said upon this point. If God made a cove- 
nant with Abraham and his seed, which required holiness of 
heart and life ; and promised all the spiritual blessings en- 
joyed by the people of God, then all who embraced that cov- 
enant, possessed the true religion, and became members of 
the visible church. This was true of Abraham and his seed : 
they formally entered into covenant with God, and were 
thus set apart and constitute the people of God. We do not 
introduce a train of arguments to prove that the entire na- 
tion of Israel embraced the covenant of circumcision, and 
that every male servant and proselyte also received this rite. 
He that is ignorant of this fact, needs the Bible instead of 
arguments. 

Now reader, if calling a people out from the idolatry and 
corruption of the world ; entering into solemn covenant with 
them ; and binding them to love and serve God with a per- 
fect heart ; choosing them for a peculiar, holy nation ; and 
giving them the ordinances and services of the only true re- 
ligion ; I repeat, if all this did not constitute them the true 
church of God ; then God never had a church ; for more 
could not be promised or required. 

But will our opponents maintain that God had a church 
in the nation, including a select portion of the nation, but 
not the nation itself? If so, let them point us to the distinct 
covenant of that church, and the distinct rites and forms and 
worship of that church, in which the nation of Israel did not 
engage. Let them inform us when that church was organ- 
ized, and who were its members in distinction from the na- 
tion. 



58 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

That circumcision was the rite of initiation into the true 
visible church, must be evident from the following considera- 
tions : 

1. The same day that God made his covenant with Abra- 
ham, he ordained that the uncircumcised soul should be cut 
off from his people as a covenant breaker, Gen. 17: 14, 
" And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his fore- 
skin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
people ; he hath broken my covenant." 

2. God excluded the uncircumcised person from the ordi- 
nances of the church, Ex. 12 : 48, " For no uncircumcised 
person shall eat thereof," i. e., of the passover. 

3. God excluded the uncircumcised from his sanctuary, 
Ez. 44 : 9, " Thus saith the Lord God ; No stranger uncir- 
cumcised in heart j nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into 
my sanctuary," &c. 

The first reason proves conclusively that circumcision was 
a condition of church membership, and the rite of initiation. 

How could an Israelite be a member of the church, if cut 
off from the people of God ? The text does not teach that 
the uncircumcised soul should be excommunicated or turned 
out of the church ; but cut off from his people. He could 
not belong to the nation, God had chosen for himself, with- 
out entering into covenant with God, and becoming a mem- 
ber of the visible church : and as the neglecting sinner is 
now considered a rejector of the gospel, so for a descendant of 
Abraham to neglect circumcision, was equivalent to cove- 
nant breaking. 

By circumcision, therefore, persons were admitted into 
covenant with God and his people, and in that relation en- 
joyed the blessings promised in God's holy covenant. We 
do not assume that no other qualification but outward circum- 
cision was necessary to entitle them to the ordinances of re- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 59 

ligion ; but this was indispensable. In another place we 
shall speak of the discipline of the church, and of offences 
for which individuals were excluded from church ordinances 
and privileges. 

It is sometimes objected that multitudes in the nation were 
destitute even of the form of piety, and that the grossest 
abominations were frequently practiced. The question is 
not whether the nation or a part of the nation exemplified 
religion, but whether they 'professed it, and were in cove- 
nant relation with God. Who does not know that it is com- 
mon in our day, for professors of religion to outrage every 
principle of Christianity'? But what would be thought of 
that candor, or intelligence which should reason against the 
existence of an evangelical church, because certain cove- 
nanting professors were delinquent ? 

Perhaps it is due in this connection to offer some reasons 
for the opinion that the entire nation of Israel were constitut- 
ed the church of God. Various views have been entertain- 
ed upon this subject, by our opponents. Mr. Carson admits 
that the " church of Israel was the nation of Israel," but then 
it was a kind of church that admitted the vile as well as the 
good, and moral character was not a condition of member- 
ship, and circumcision was the only qualification necessary 
to entitle its members to all its ordinances. Mr. Carson main- 
tains that the church of Israel " Was the church into which 
its members were born," and that it "admitted any stranger 
to its passover without any condition of faith or character, 
merely on complying with a certain regulation that gave 
circumcision to their males without any condition of faith or 
character." — Carson on Bap. p. 373 — 4. Perhaps it did not 
occur to Mr. Carson, that one clause in ihe constitution or 
covenant of the church expressly declared that " The uncir- 
cumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not cir- 
6* 



60 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

cumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath 
broken my covenant." Gen. 17 : 14. 

Strange indeed, that he should be cut off from his people for 
uncircumcision, and still be born into the church, and there- 
fore constituted a member without circumcision ! And stran- 
ger still that the ordinances of the church might not be en- 
joyed by the regular members of the church until they com- 
plied with a certain rite which did not even require faith or 
character as a condition ! ! Mr. Carson occupies about two 
pages with such wholesale, random assertions, We will en- 
deavor to do him justice when we come to consider the 
identity of the Old and New Testament church, and its cov- 
enant. 

Mr. A. Campbell maintains that God never organized the 
seed of Abraham into a church, until the giving of the law 
at Sinai, and " That the infant seed of Abraham were born 
members of this Jewish church." (Campbell and McCal- 
la's Debate, p. 175, 194.) Of course, the old patriarchs, 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, never belonged to the visible 
church ! 

Mr. A. Booth argues that the Jewish church " Was an 
ecclesiastico-political constitution," and that " an obedient 
subject of their civil government, and a complete member of 
their church state, were the same thing." Vol. 2, p. 25-12. 
By Edwards, p. 51. 

But the more discriminating Mr. A. Fuller affirms 
" Through them (Abraham and his posterity) we have a Bi« 
ble, a Saviour, and a gospel. They are the stock on which 
the Christian church is grafted." Vol. 1, p. 761. 

If the reader will take the trouble to consult authors, he 
will find a variety of opinions among our opponents relative 
to the real character of the Old Testament church. Indeed, 
it has been apparently an extremely difficult subject to man- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 61 

age. Some have even denied the existence of a church pre- 
vious to the coming of our Saviour. This was the position 
of a Baptist minister in a recent public discussion with the 
author. This last position which denies the existence of a 
church previous to the New Testament dispensation, may 
appear bold and startling to some, but still it is vastly more 
consistent and honorable to God, than to make him the au- 
thor and patron of a political, worldly organization, called 
church, where a mixture of the good and ungodly unite by 
Divine authority and sanction, for the maintenance of a 
semi-religious system of rites and forms " without any con- 
dition of faith or character." The apostle assures us, that 
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," and "without faith it is 
impossible to please God ;" and yet our opponents point us 
to rites and ordinances, instituted by God himself, to which 
faithless sinners might come, without condition or restraint ; 
provided they had been circumcised, and even circumcision 
imposed no conditions of faith or character ! Reader, did the 
God of Abraham, who said, the day he established his cov- 
enant with Abraham and his seed, "I am the Almighty God ; 
walk before me and be thou perfect ;" ordain and approve 
such a system % 

But what can our opponents do with the argument in favor 
of infant church membership, based upon the Abrahamic 
covenant ? If the covenant of circumcision was the consti- 
tution of the true visible church of God, and infants were by 
Divine authority put in the church by that covenant, how 
can they be put out of the church % That infants were mem- 
bers is so obvious, that our opponents claim that the seed of 
Abraham " were horn into the Jewish church." But, alas ! 
the church was a kind of political, worldly organization, and 
God was not so strict with its members, as to require faith or 
character as a condition of privilege or blessing! ! Yes; 



62 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

impeach the spiritual character of both covenant and church, 
and yet make God the author and proprietor of both ! 

This mode of reasoning would appear less singular from 
any other class of objectors. But after our opponents have 
made God the author of a church, into which its members 
were born, and which gave its ordinances to impenitent sin- 
ners, provided they complied with the simple condition of sub- 
mitting to the rite of circumcision, which rite did not even 
require faith or any moral exercise ; presently they inform 
us of another church, organized by the same God in gospel 
days, and so exclusive in its character that none were born 
into it," and even the seed of God's own beloved children 
were cast out of it ! Under one dispensation it was consis- 
tent and right, as our opponents reason, for God to create a 
political, worldly church, into which the vilest entered and 
were proper members ; while under another dispensation, it 
corrupts and vitiates the whole church, if but the seed of be- 
lievers are brought into covenant relation. 

Our opponents, as we have already shown, maintain, that 
God made two covenants with Abraham ; the first a spir- 
itual covenant, which promised the Messiah ; and the other 
a temporal covenant which gave Abraham and his posterity 
the land of Canaan, and other worldly advantages. Now 
we would ask our opponents, under which of those covenants 
the Old Testament church was organized ? Or was the 
church without a covenant ? It would seem logical to infer 
that the church followed out the design of her covenant : 
Hence if the character and design of her covenant was tem- 
poral, the church embraced no higher object ; but if her 
covenant was spiritual, then the church was spiritual, and 
her temporal blessings merely incidental to her spiritual 
character and design. If our opponents decide upon the tem- 
poral covenant, as the constitution of the church, then they 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 63 

have a church without spiritual blessings. But we have al- 
ready shown that God made but owe covenant with Abraham, 
and that was a spiritual covenant, and the constitution of the 
church. 

Old Testament Church. 

That every objection may be fully met, and every argu- 
ment duly weighed, we will now consider both the existence 
and character of the Old Testament church. We do this the 
more cheerfully, that we may vindicate God's church from 
some of the common imputations of error and ignorance. 
Nothing is more common than to hear representations re- 
specting the church of Israel, and Old Testament religion 
and morality, which, if true, v. ould rank God's ancient cov- 
enant people with barbarous tribes and savage nations. We 
do not charge all this to the account of our Baptist brethren : 
Still we ask if such representations do not receive confirma- 
tion from arguments which go to prove the Old Testament 
church an " ecclesiastico-political constitution," which ad- 
mitted and fellowshipped the ungodly and vile of every sort, 
" without condition of faith or character, provided they were 
circumcised. What mu^t the intelligent skeptic think of 
such a church, and the God who constituted it, and claimed 
its members as his chosen people ? 

1. The spirit of God speaking by the martyr Stephen, 
says, Acts 7 : 38, c; This is he that was in the church in the 
wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount 
Sinai, and with our fathers ; who received the lively oracles 
to give unto us." 

Here we find the church of God in the wilderness receiv- 
ing the oracles of God, or sacred Scriptures, that she might 
transmit them to Jews and Gentiles in apostolic times. A 



64 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

more solemn and sacred trust, God never confided to any 
people, than the keeping of his holy word ; and we might 
add, no people ever guarded the sacred Scriptures with such 
vigilence, as did ancient Israel. This act of confidence on 
God's part, is an endorsement of the character of the church, 
and proves her something more than a worldly organiza- 
tion. 

The word " church" in the connection, is in the Greek 
" ekklesia, from ek out of, and kaleo to call, i. e., to call out 
The word expresses what was true of Abraham and his seed, 
God called them out, and set them apart as a holy nation. 
So of the church now, she is called out from the world, and 
set apart, and consecrated to the service of God. The word 
ekklesia is of common occurrence in the Old Testament, but 
is usually translated congregation, and assembly. For ex- 
amples see Deut, 9 : 10—18 : 16— Judges 21 : 5, 8—2 
Chron. 29 : 28, 32— Josh. 8 : 35— Compare Heb. 2 : 12 
with Ps. 22 : 22 — 40 : 9, 10. Scores of quotations might 
be added if necessary. We do not maintain that the word 
ekklesia always denotes a religious body, or Christian assem- 
bly. The same word however, translated assembly and con- 
gregation in the Old Testament is rendered church in the 
New, and means substantially the same thing in both. The 
Rev. James Eells says, page 29, " The whole nation or com- 
monwealth of Israel was often denominated * Pasa ekklesia 
Israel^ i. e., the whole church of Israel." 

The word in Heb. which is rendered in our English Bi- 
bles assembly, congregation &c, when applied to the peo- 
ple of Israel is ekklesia by the Septuagint, which is translated 
church in the New Testament. "I know not (says Dr. 
Campbell) for what reason our English translators have never 
admitted the word church into the Old Testament, notwith- 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 65 

standing the frequent use which they have made of it in their 
translation of the New." 

The argument to prove that ekklesia does not indicate a 
people in covenant relation and obligation with God, because 
it is sometimes applied to other than religious assemblies, is 
just as specious and honest as the argument to prove that the 
word ouranos, heaven, does not mean a place of happiness, 
because it sometimes indicates the aerial regions ; Or hades, 
hell, does not mean a place of punishment, because it is some- 
times used to denote the grave. 

Sacred Scriptures. 

God's ancient people Israel, had the sacred Scriptures — 
God's revealed will for their rule of faith and practice. 
Rom. 3: 2, "What advantage then, hath the Je»v? and 
what profit is there of circumcision % Much every way, 
chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of 
God." The oracles of God committed to the Jews, embrac- 
ed the substance of the gospel. Hence Paul affirms that the 
gospel preached to believers after Christ came, was preached 
also to Old Testament saints. Heb. 4 : 2, " For unto us 
was the gospel preached, as well as unto them : (Israelites) 
but the word preached did not profit, not being mixed with 
faith in them that heard it." The Israelites, therefore en- 
joyed gospel preaching, and were required to exercise saving 
or justifying faith as the condition of the Divine favor. 

More than this cannot be said of the church under the 
gospel dispensation. The church may enjoy a greater mea- 
sure of light, still, gospel preaching and justifying faith, is 
the substance, and will be, while the economy of grace en- 
dures : And it is equally true, when the word preached 
does not profit, it is for the want of faith in them that hear it. 



bb CONSTITUTION OP THE 

Worship of God. 

The Jews as a nation maintained the true worship of God, 
both in fact and in form ; and we might add, no nation ever 
maintained the worship of God at greater expense and sac- 
rifice. 

1. By the authority of God, one whole tribe was conse- 
crated and set apart to the duties of religion. This tribe 
constituted the priesthood — the ministry of Israel. 

2. The Jews enjoyed the day and means of grace. God 
gave them the holy Sabbath, and an earthly sanctuary. 
Days of fasting and prayer were ordained ; and also days of 
thanksgiving and praise. Three times during each year 
every male in the nation came together for a " holy convo- 
cation," Deut. 16: 16. 

3. All the bloody rites and sacrifices — offerings and ab- 
lutions, observed by the nation, were means of grace, point- 
ing to the way and necessity of moral purity. See Heb. 9th , 
10th chap. 

4. They were in the constant, regular habit of meeting 
for the public worship of God, to hear the Scriptures ex- 
pounded and unite in other solemn religious services. 

Now reader, to consecrate the priesthood, observe Sab- 
baths, and other days of " holy convocation," to offer sacri- 
fices, practice ceremonial purifications and ablutions, and 
yet not profess the true and only Bible religion, would alto- 
gether constitute 1 he greatest farce ever exhibited. And that 
God should require all this, as the condition of worldly pros- 
perity, and from a people out of the true visible church, is 
the climax of absurdity. 

Covenant. 

As an illustration of what God required, and the nation of 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 67 

Israel professed, we will refer to their solemn, formal cove- 
nant, to which the entire nation subscribed. This covenant 
may be considered as the exposition of the acknowledged re- 
lation between God and his people, Israel. Deut. 26 : 17, 
18, 19, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy 
God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and 
his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto 
his voice. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be 
his peculiar people, as he has promised thee, and that thou 
shouldst keep all his commandments. And to make thee 
high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in 
name, and in honor ; and that thou may est be a holy people 
unto the Lord thy God as he hath spoken." Will the rea- 
der also consult Deut. 29 : 10—13. Josh. 24 : 14—25. 2 
Kings 23 : 3 ; and then decide whether the nation of Israel 
professed the true religion, and were members of God's own 
church, or were only an " ecclesiastico-political constitution V* 
To such as represent the pure God as entering into cove- 
nant with an unholy nation — a nation not even professing 
true godliness, we recommend Ps. 50 : 16, " But unto the 
wicked God saith, what hast thou to do, to declare my stat- 
utes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth?" 

People of God. 

We have frequently adverted to the fact, that the Jews as 
a nation, were the chosen people of God. By this we mean 
that they were the people of God in the same sense that the 
visible church now may be considered the people of God. 
They professed the true religion, and covenanted to walk in 
all the ordinances of the Lord blameless : and by such pro- 
fession and covenant were distinguished from all other na- 
tions, as the church is now distinguished from the world by 
7 



68 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

her professions. That they were the people of God in this 
peculiar sense, we will now undertake to prove. 

Lev. 26 : 12, " And I will walk among you, and will be 
your God, and ye shall be my people." Compare with 2 
Cor. 6 : 16, "And what agreement hath the temple of God 
with idols ; for ye are the temple of the living God, as God 
hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will 
be their God, and they shall be my people." See Ex. 29 : 
45. 46. 

Heb. 11: 24, 25,26, " By faith, Moses, when he was 
come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's 
daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people 
of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, es- 
teeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the trea- 
sures in Egypt : for he had respect unto the recompense of 
the reward." Here then we find Moses suffering affliction 
with the people of God, and esteeming the reproach of Christ 
greater riches than the treasures of Egypt ; and still Mr. A. 
Campbell informs us, that Israel were never constituted a 
church until the giving of the law on Sinai, and then it was 
a church, which did not respect moral character, as a quali- 
fication or condition of membership. 

1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, 3, 4, " Moreover brethren, I would not 
that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were un- 
der the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all 
baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all 
eat of the same spiritual meat •; and did all drink the sam© 
spiritual drink, (for they drank of that spiritual rock that 
followed them, and that rock was Christ.") Comment is 
unnecessary, 

Discipline. 

The discipline of the church under the Old Testament, dis- 



ABRAHAM! C CHURCH. 69 

pensation claims some attention. Discipline was far less dis- 
cretionary with the church, than under the gospel dispensa- 
tion, since God himself gave direction in relation to the disposi- 
tion of individual transgressors. But the reader will find many 
immoralities and irregularities specified, and on record, which 
subjected the offender to discipline and excommunication. 
For example, individuals were cutoff from the people of God 
for idolatry, Ex. 22 : 20. For profanity, Lev. 24 : 15, 16. 
For licentiousness, Lev. 18 : 29. Disobedience to parents, 
Ex. 21 :15, 16. For Sabbath breaking, Ex. 31: 14, 15. 
For neglect of Divine ordinances, Lev. 23 : 29, 30. 

That God rebuked and punished the Israelites for such 
sins as oppression, unbelief, backsliding, &c.,istoo notorious 
to require proof. In fact, multitudes of professors of religion 
now in good standing in the church, would have been excom- 
municated in Old Testament times. 

Perhaps our opponents may argue, that some of the above 
sins were punished with death, as offenses against civil gov- 
ernment. We would simply ask the objector, whether crimes 
punishable by death under civil law, were disciplinable offen- 
ses in the church ? The very argument of our opponents 
goes to demonstrate more fully our own position in relation 
to the Jewish nation ; that God constituted the nation, his 
true visible church, hence immoral persons were cut off 
from the church and nation. 

Religious Instruction. 

No people since the world began, ever surpassed the Jews 
in their reverance for the oracles of God, and their diligence 
in communicating religious instruction. As an illustration 
of what God required, examine Deut. 6 : 4 — 9, " Here O 
Israel ; The Lord thy God is one Lord ; And thou shalt 



70 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy 
soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I 
command thee this day, shall he in thine heart. And thou 
shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk 
of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou 
walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when 
thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon 
thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thine house, and 
on thy gates. " 

That the Jews did thus instruct their children in the law, 
and write it upon their door posts and gates, and bind it be- 
tween their eyes is sufficiently evident. According to our 
Saviour's testimony, Matt. 23 : 5, in some respects they even 
transcended the letter of the command by making " broad 
their phylacteries/' that they might make a greater display. 

Morality of the Old Testament Church. 

Much has been said in regard to the morality of the Old 
Testament church, or Jewish religion. Infidels have repre- 
sented their religion as a system of " semi-barbarism" almost 
destitute of morality. Many professors of religion seem to 
regard it now, as a mixed system of twi-light and darkness 
tolerated on account of the half savage state of the world ; 
but destitute of the sound morality inculcated under the gos- 
pel dispensation. Some persons, instead of the Divine pre- 
cept,, take example and practice of delinquent professors, as 
an exposition of their system ; hence all the crimes and 
abominations practiced by wicked Jews, is put to the account 
of their religion. 

Now we take the position, that the morality of the Old 
Testament is as pure as the morality of the New, and in- 



ABItAHAMIC CHURCH. 71 

volves the same fundamental principles. Our witness is the 
testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

1. Matt. 22: 35 — 40, "Then one of them which was a law- 
yer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, 
which is the great commandment in the law ? Jesus said 
unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy mind. This L> the first and great 
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments 
hang all the law and the prophets." See Deut. 6; 5, Lev, 
19: 18. 

Reader, does the New Testament furnish a higher, holier, 
or different standard of morality than love supreme to God 
and to our neighbor as ourselves ? This was the standard of 
"all the law r and the prophets" — the oracles of God com- 
mitted to the Jews. Will our opponents assume that "all 
the law and the prophets" were not a rule of faith and prac- 
tice for the Old Testament church % 

2. Matt. 7: 12, "Therefore all things, whatsoever ye 
would that men shou.d do unio you, do ye even so to them : 
for this is the law and the prophets." This text, by way of 
pre-eminence, is frequently called the "Golden Rule," be- 
cause it furnishes a convenient rule, by which we may regu- 
late our mutual intercourse. It enters into the very spirit of 
the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
Now the Saviour declares, that " The law and the prophets" 
teach the same sentiment, viz : " All things whatsoever ye 
would, that men should do unto you, do ye even so them." 
Reader, did God excuse the Jewish church and nation from 
observing or obeying those precepts ? If so, give us the 
evidence. 

We have nothing to do with the fact that there were bad 
members in the church, or that members did not practice 
7* 



72 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

according to these principles. Objections of this character 
are against the practice, and not the precept. It would be 
just as candid and honest to argue, from the immorality and 
irregularity of professed Christians, against the truth of Di- 
vine revelation. What did the law and the prophets require 
of Old Testament church members ? is the question at issue;, 
and to this question the Saviour replies, " Love God su- 
premely, and thy neighbor as thyself ; for on these two com- 
mands hang all the law and the prophets." 

We consider it unnecessary to say more in confirmation 
of our position. We might speak of the benevolence of the 
church for religious purposes ; such as the support of the* 
ministry or priesthood, Num. 18: 21, 24. Religious offer- 
ings, Deut. 14: 22. Appropriations for the poor, Deut. 14:: 
28, 29. The cost of sacrifices and temple services alone, 
would constitute an alarming sum, were professors of reli- 
gion now called to foot the bill. We might illustrate the 
benevolence of Old Testament religion, by reference to their 
treatment of servants, the release of lands, law against usu- 
ry, hospitality to strangers, and a multitude of kindred sub- 
jects. 

But feeling confident that we have abundantly sustained 
our proposition, which affirms that "circumcision was the 
seal of a spiritual covenant and the initiatory rite into the 
true visible church of God," we now submit the case to the 
candid and impartial. If, with the argument and evidence 
before him, the reader decides that God made two covenants 
with Abraham, a temporal covenant, and spiritual covenant; 
that circumcision was a sign of carnal descent ; a mark of 
national distinction, and a token of interest in the temporal 
blessings that God promised to Abraham ; and that the church 
of Israel was a mere ecclesiastico-political constitution ; then 
we judge him not; but simply say, our views and faith upon. 



ABRAHAMIC CHUIICH. 73 

this interesting subject, have no affinity with such senti- 
ments. 

II. Infants were, by Divine authority, brought into cove- 
nant relation and constituted members of the church, by the 
same rite that constituted adults members. 

Little need be said upon this proposition. Our opponents, 
in their zeal to prove the Old Testament church a mere "ec- 
clesiastico-political constitution- — a kind of semi-religious 
organization — have insisted that the seed of Abraham were 
born into the Jewish church. So they were in the church, 
and members of the church, according to the reasoning of 
our opponents. 

Singular, indeed, that they should be born members of the 
church and yet entitled to none of the privileges or ordinan- 
ces of the church until circumcised. We have been in the 
habit of supposing that the regular members of any society 
were entitled to the privileges of such society. What a 
blank relation, to be a member of the church, and yet mem- 
bership confer no church privileges! Perhaps our oppo- 
nents will say, that the seed of Abraham, born into the Jew- 
ish church, had a right ta circumcision. We answer, so 
had a heathen, a right to circumcision, when he became a 
proselyte ; and he had also a Divine right to circumcise his 
male children, and thus bring them into the church. Ac- 
cording to this argument,, none but proselytes were ever ad- 
mitted into the church under the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion, unless national birth was an admission. 

But there is another difficulty which our opponents must 
remove before we can embrace the sentiment that the seed 
of Abraham were born into the church. Circumcision was 
the seal and condition of covenant relation, therefore none 
entered into covenant with God, ivithout circumcision. But 
the argument of our opponents,, makes individuals, members 



74 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

o£ the church before they enter into covenant, i. e., they 
are out of God's covenant, but in God's church, because 
born into the latter. If the reader can comprehend the ad- 
vantages of such church relation, then he must be gifted in 
solving dark sayings. 

The view we have presented is simple, harmonious, and 
and intelligible. The covenant of circumcision was the 
constitution of the true visible church ; and circumcision as 
the seal was necessarily the rite of initiation, both for Jews 
and Gentiles, proselytes, and servants. When God made 
his covenant with Abraham, circumcision was as necessary 
to* bring his seed into covenant relation, as himself. Let the 
reader carefully consult Gen. 17, and Ex. 12: 48, 49, and he 
will find that whether born in the land, a descendant of 
Abraham, or a stranger, there was one law, and one condi- 
tion ; circumcision was the rite or seal, by which individuals 
entered into covenant with God, and without circumcision 
even the natural seed of Abraham, were cut off from the 
people of God. We again ask the candid reader, if all this 
could be true, and still the individual be a birth-right mem- 
ber of the church ? Men may think and speak lightly of the 
covenant and rite of circumcision, but an Israelite, could 
not. It was the charter of his blessings, and the spiritual 
inheritance of his children, because it contained the promise 
sealed with blood, " I will be a God unto thee, and to thy 
seed after thee." 



FART SECOND. 

THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. 



MATTHEW, 21: 43. 



"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 

We have already conclusively shown, that the covenant 
of circumcision was a spiritual covenant ; and that it was the 
basis or constitution of the true visible church of God un- 
der the Old Testament dispensation. We have also estab- 
lished the position, that infants were, by Divine authority, 
brought into covenant and church relation, by the same rite 
of initiation, that constituted adults members of the visible 
church. We now invite attention to the second division of 
our subject. 

I. We shall now undertake to prove that the Old and 
New Testament church is one and the same church under 
different dispensations. 

II. The covenant of the true visible church of God is 
the same under both Old and New Testament dispensations. 

Now reader, if we shall prove that God has had but one 
visible church since the days of Abraham, based upon one 
and the same covenant, and that the Abrahamic covenant ; 
then it must follow that the covenant and church relations of 



ib CONSTITUTION OF THE 

believers and their children now, are substantially the same 
as under the Old Testament dispensation. The original 
constitution of the church must be our guide, while that re- 
mains unrepealed. 

1. We shall now undertake to prove that the Old and New 
Testament church is one and the same church under differ- 
ent dispensations. 

There may be changes in a church without destroying the 
identity, or changing the constitution of said church. Some 
things are fundamental to the existence of a church, while 
other things are merely incidental to a church. For exam- 
ple, there can be no constitutional church of God, without 
the proper members of the church. But the rites and forms 
of a church may change — her mode of worship vary, and 
accommodate itself to outward circumstances, and still be 
the same church. It may even be true that the church may 
backslide from God, and lose the life and power of godliness, 
become corrupt in doctrine and practice, and still remain the 
only true visible church. Let our opponents deny this and 
they are driven to the extreme, that God's visible church 
never backslides — never departs from Bible truth, in faith^ in 
form, or spirit ; therefore exhortations to duty, to sound doc- 
trine and correct practice, have no application to the true 
church ! ! 

But the members of a church are necessary to the exist- 
ence and identity of the church ; because they are the con- 
stituent parts or elements of the church. Now the visible 
church of God, as we have shown, originally embraced 
adults, professing the true religion, and their children ; 
hence Christian organizations that exclude the seed of be- 
lievers from covenant and church relation, are not Bible- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 77 

constitutional churches, i. e., are not based upon the origin- 
al Bible constitution, because that included the children of 
God's people, as among the constituent parts of the church. 
In due time we shall endeavor to establish this position, and 
show that God never had a church which denied the right 
and obligation of infant church membership. 

We will now attend to our first proposition, which affirms 
that the "Old and New Testament church, is one and the 
same church under different dispensations." Now if this 
proposition be not true, then there must have been two mili- 
tant churches. Either the " gates of hell prevailed against 
the first church, or God dissolved the Old Testament church, 
and organized another upon a different foundation. How 
far such conclusions are consistent, and honorable to the 
wise and immutable God, we leave for the decision of our 
reader. 

But "to the law and the testimony," "Therefore say I 
unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and 
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 

1, What does the Saviour mean by the phrase "Kingdom 
of God V This phrase is of frequent occurrence in the 
New Testament, and denotes the spiritual administration or 
reign of God; whether in the heart of the believer, in the 
church militant, or in the kingdom of glory ; hence, it points 
out the sovereign, the dominion, and the subject. That the 
kingdom of glory is frequently intended, few will deny. And 
that the reign of grace in the soul of the believer, is also ex- 
pressed in the phrase " Kingdom of God," can be easily 
shown. Rom. 14: 17, "For the kingdom of God is not 
meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy, in 
the Holy Ghost." Again, Luke 17: 21, " For behold the 
kingdom of God is within you." 

That the same phrase is sometimes used to denote the vis- 



78 ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 

ible church, is equally certain. Let the reader carefully 
consult Matt. 25: 1-12; also, 13: 24-32, 47-50. Is it 
true of the kingdom of glory, that some are wise, and some 
foolish— t&at first the kingdom of glory is small like a grain 
of mustard seed — that wheat and tares grow together in the 
kingdom of glory — and will the angels of God, gather out 
of the kingdom of glory, all things that offend, and them 
which do iniquity ? These things may be applicable to the 
kingdom of God on earth ; but it would be little short of 
blasphemy to refer them to the kingdom of glory above. 

2. Did the Jewish church, or nation, in any sense ever 
possess the kingdom of God % How could the kingdom of 
God be taken from them, if they never possessed it 1 Ex. 
19 : 6, " And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and 
an holy nation." Hence, as early as the days of Moses, in 
one sense Israel was the " kingdom of God." 

3. But does the language " The kingdom of God shall be 
taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits thereof," imply that the Old Testament, or Jewish 
church is the same "kingdom of God," or church as that 
into which Gentiles were received under the gospel dispensa- 
tion ? In Isaiah 5 : 1-7, the prophet of God speaks of the 
church under the similitude of a vineyard, in a very fruitful 
country, carefully cultivated, and securely guarded, but alas ! 
instead of good fruit, it "brought forth wild grapes." The 
Saviour, in connection with the text employs the same figure 
to illustrate the condition, and prospects of the Jews, as 
God's professed people. Matt. 21 : 33-45, " Hear another 
parable ; there was a certain householder, which planted a 
vineyard and hedged it round about, and digged a wine press 
in it, and built atower, and let it out to husbandmen that they 
might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandman took 
his servants and beat one, and killed another, and stoned 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 7$ 

another. And he sent other servants more than the first ; 
and they did unto them likewise. 

But last of all, he sent unto them his son, saying, they will 
reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the 
son they said among themselves, this is the heir ; come, let 
us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 

And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard and 
slew him. When therefore the lord of the vineyard cometh 
what will he do unto those husbandmen. They say unto 
him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will 
let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall ren- 
der him the fruits in their season." 

Now the next verse shows what the Saviour meant by 
this parable ; " Jesus saith unto them (chief priests and el- 
ders) did ye never read in the Scriptures (Ps. 118 : 22) the 
stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the 
head of ihe corner. This is the Lord's doings, and it is mar- 
velous in our eyes." Then follows our text, u Therefore 
say 1 unto you ; the kingdom of God shall be taken from 
you, and given unto a nation bringing forth the fruits there- 
of." In the 45th verse it is added " And when the chief 
priests and Pharisees had heard this parable, they perceived 
that he spake of them." See Mark 12 : 1-11. Luke 20 : 
9-13. 

Now, if our Saviour did not misapply this parable, then 
the same moral vineyard which originally belonged to the 
Jewish nation, was given to the Gentiles. This is obvious 
for two reasons : 

1. He quotes in immediate connection with the parable, 
Ps. 118 : 22, " The stone which the builders refused, is be- 
come the head stone of the corner," to prove, that the things 
signified by this parable, when fulfilled, would be only the 
fulfillment of their own Scriptures, which predicted the re= 
8 



$0 CONSTITUTION OP THE 

jection of the Messiah by Jewish builders, but the acceptance 
of him by Gentiles. Hence the moral vineyard or church 
is intended ? 

2. The word " Therefore'' in our text, shows that the le- 
gitimate, or proper conclusion from the parable is this. 
" The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to 
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." If our opponents 
maintain that the parable refers to the temporal privileges 
and blessings of the Jewish nation ; then we simply ask, to 
what nation did God give their temporal blessings and privi- 
leges, and what were " the fruits thereof." 

Reformation. 

1. Paul affirms Heb. 9 : 10, that the coming of Christ to 
fulfill the Jewish ceremonial dispensation, would be a time 
of reformation in the church. " Which stood only in meats 
and drinks and divers washings, and carnal ordinances im- 
posed on them until the time of reformation ." But our op- 
ponents maintain, that the coming of Christ to fulfill Jewish 
rituals, was a time of destruction, i. e., the Old Testament 
church was abolished* Reader, does reformation imply des- 
truction ? 

2. Old Testament prophets when speaking of the. change 
in the church consequent to the coming of Christ, represent 
that change as simply a reformation in the church, and so 
they are understood and explained by New Testament wri* 
ters. 

Mai. 3 : 1, 2, 3, "Behold I will send my messenger and 
he shall prepare the way before me : and the Lord whom ye 
seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger 
of the covenant whom ye delight in : behold he shall come 
saith the Lord of hosts. But who mav abide the dav of his 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 81 

coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth 1 for he 
is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap : and he shall 
sit as a refiner and purifier of silver," &c. Matt. 3 : 12, 
" Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge 
his floor." Here then we find purification, and cleansing, 
but not destruction. John the Baptist declares that he "came 
to prepare the way of the Lord and make his paths straight." 
" Suddenly" the Messiah appeared, whose preaching was in- 
deed like fire and soap to purify and cleanse the church, 
which had become exceedingly corrupt. Yet there were 
some who " waited for the consolation of Israel." Luke 2 : 
25. 

3. That Christ came to purify and reform the Old Tes- 
tament church, and not to do away or abolish, is certain 
from Acts 15 : It appears some of the Jews insisted, that 
Gentile converts " must be circumcised and keep the law of 
Moses." The apostles therefore, and elders came together 
for counsel. Peter, Paul and Barnabas gave a history of 
their labor among the Gentiles. James then addressed the 
council as follows ; " Men and brethren, hearken unto me. 
Simeon hath declared how God at the first, did visit the Gen- 
tiles to take out of them a people for his name. And to this 
agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written (Amos 9 : 
11) " After this I will return and will build again the taber- 
nacle of David which is fallen down, and I will build again 
the ruins thereof, and I will set it up : That the residue of 
men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon 
whom mv name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these 
things." 

Now if James correctly interprets and applies this proph- 
esy, then instead of organizing a new church when our Sa- 
viour came, the Old Testament church was purified and 
opened for the reception of the Gentiles \ and this consiitu- 



82 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

ted the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, which had fall- 
en down. Yes, reader, God built again the ruins thereof, 
and set it up, even the old tabernacle of David — enlarged, 
beautified and suited to the gospel dispensation. 

There is one point to which we invite particular attention. 
When Daniel expounded the dream of Nebuchadnezzar con- 
cerning the image, he declared, that c; In the days of these 
kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall 
never be destroyed." (See Dan. 2 : 44.) But in Ames 9 : II 
we read, " In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of Da- 
vid that is fallen," &c. And James quoting the prophesy 
of Amos, says, God " will set it up," i. e., the tabernacle. 
Dr. Rice remarks, ( Campbell and Rice's Discussion, p. 416.) 
" It is worthy of remark, that the Hebrew word used by 
Amos, in the passage quoted by James, the Chaldaic word 
used by Daniel, and the Septuagint translation, all have the 
same meaning, viz.; to cause to stand" 

Daniel and Amos, therefore prophesied, that, notwith- 
standing the degeneracy and corruption of God's professed 
people, the day was coming when God would visit Zion, re- 
vive, purify and cause her to stand again ; and the Apostle 
James, in public councils, shows the fulfillment of the proph- 
esy of Amos, in the conversion of the Gentiles. 

Olive Tree* 

Paul seems to have anticipated the error of modern days, 
in regard to the identity or sameness of the Old and New 
Testament church : Hence he introduces the figure of the 
Olive Tree, an emblem of peace, and a beautiful figure to 
represent the visible church. The reader will find the argu- 
ment of the apostle in Rom. 11. From the first to the 16th 
verse is occupied, with some general remarks in relation to 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 83 

the sin of Israel, and the calling of the Gentiles : He then 
goes on to prove, that believing Gentiles now occupy the 
place in God's church, once enjoyed by the Jews, but from 
which they were excluded for unbelief. 

Verse 16. " For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is 
also holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. , 

17. " And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou 
being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and 
with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree : 

18. " Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, 
thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 

19. "Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off, 
that I might be graffed in. 

20. " Well \ because of unbelief they were broken off 
and thou standest by faith. Be not high minded, but fear. 

21. "For if God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee. 

22. "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : 
on them which fell, severity ; but towards thee, goodness, if 
thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be 
cut off. 

23. " And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief 
shall be graffed in : for God is able to graff them in again. 

24. " For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is 
wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a 
good olive-tree, how much more shall these which be the 
natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree." 

In Jer. 11 : 16, the church is called " A green olive-tree." 
The prophet Hosea also, (14 : 6) speaking of the prosper- 
ity and enlargement of the church says, " His branches 
shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and 
his smell as Lebanon." Professor Stuart in his commentary 
on Rom. 11 : 17, says "The wild olive was often grafted 
8* 



84 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

into the fruitful one, when it began to decay, and thus not 
only brought forth fruit, but caused the decaying olive to re- 
vive and flourish. The image which the apostle here em- 
ploys, is therefore, a vivid one. The Gentiles had been 
grafted in upon the Jewish church, and had caused this de- 
cayed tree to revive and flourish." 

The 11th chap, of Romans, has seriously embarrassed 
our opponents in their labor to dispose of the arguments 
which go to establish the sameness of the Old and New Tes- 
tament church. All manner of interpretations have been 
offered, without giving satisfaction, or solving the problem. 
The reason is obvious ; if the olive-tree represents the true 
visible church ; then the Old and New Testament church is 
one and the same ; and all the authority of precept and exam- 
ple derived from Old Testament times, in favor of infant 
church membership, come down to the gospel dispensation. 

1. That the olive-tree does not represent the land of Ca- 
naan, is very certain ; for then some Jews and Gentiles, by 
faith continued still to inherit it. Did Paul mean to say, that 
the Roman Christians were grafted into Canaan % 

2. That the olive-tree does not represent the spiritual body 
of Christ, is equally certain ; for then the Jews who were 
broken off, fell from grace. This, Calvinislic Baptists dare 
not admit. Yes : and those that were broken off, were the 
natural branches of Christ's spiritual body ! 

3. But the great argument relied upon, is, that Christ is 
the olive-tree, and his professed people are the branches. If 
Christ is the olive-tree, then the Jews were either broken off 
from Christ, or from a profession of Christ. But did the Jews 
embrace the gospel, or reject it as a nation % Now, as the 
Gentiles were grafted in, where the Jews were broken off] 
it necessarily follows, that either the Jews who ivere broken 
°fff or unbelief did profess the true religion, and consequent- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 85 

ly were members of the true church ; or, the Gentiles who by 
faith were grafted, in where the Jews were broken off, did not 
profess the true religion, and were not members of the true 
church; because the latter took the place of the former. 
There is no escape from this conclusion. 

4. Some have maintained that Jews and Gentiles were or- 
ganized into a new church after our Saviour came. But were 
the broken off branches, " the natural branches" of the new 
church ? Was the new church 4i their own olive-tree V' i. e., 
the Jewish olive-tree. When were the Jews broken off from 
the new church for unbelief I and in what sense were the 
Gentiles grafted into the new church where the Jews were 
broken off ? 

The true Exfosition. 

The olive-tree represents the true visible church. The 
Jews by covenant relation were constituted the natural mem- 
bers of the visible church, God was their God, and they be- 
came God's chosen people — a holy nation. Hence the Jews 
are called " The first fruit — the root — the natural branches," 
and the olive tree was " their own olive-tree." In the full- 
ness of time Christ came " as a purifier and refiner" to purge 
and cleansejthe church and " raise up the tabernacle of David 
which had fallen down." 

It was a time of reformation ; hence unbelievers in the 
church were broken off; and Gentile converts were grafted 
into the Jewish church, among those believing Jews, that 
embraced the Messiah, and with them " partake of the rich- 
ness and fatness of the olive-tree." 

The apostle exhorts the Gentiles to humility in view of 
the fact, that they are neither the root nor natural branches 
of the olive-tree ; therefore if unbelieving will also be cutoff. 



86 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

since God showed such " severity" towards the natural 
branches. 

But the 23d and 24th verses, must forever settle this ques- 
tion in the judgment of the impartial. " And they (Jews) also 
if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafFed in : For 
God is able to graff them in agajn. For if thou were cut out 
of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed 
contrary to nature into a good olive-tree ; how much more 
shall these which he the natural branches he graffed into 

THEIR OWN OLIVE-TREE." 

Reader, the olive-tree, or church of the Old Testament is 
by no means destroyed. Only some of the branches are 
broken off: The trunk of the tree remains — a holy root, 
yielding the richness and fatness of the good olive-tree, to all 
the branches, whether Jews or Gentiles ; and in that same 
old stock, if a member of the true visible church of God, 
thou art grafted, that the " blessings of Abraham might come 
on thee, through Jesus Christ." 

Fellow-Citizens. 

Almost every variety and form of figure and speech, are 
employed by the inspired writers to express the sameness, or 
identity of the Old and New Testament church* We have 
considered this doctrine under the heads " Kingdom of God, 
Tabernacle of David, the olive-tree ;" and we now invite 
attention to another form of expressing this same sentiment. 

Eph. 2: 11, 12, 13. "Wherefore remember, that ye 
being in time past, Gentiles in the flesh, who are called un- 
circumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the 
flesh made by hands : That at that time ye were without 
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. i < 

and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesu?, 
ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood 
of Christ." Compare with 19 th, 20th verses, " Now there- 
fore ye are no mure strangers and foreigners, but felloic-cit- 
izens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are 
built upon the foundation of the npostles and prophets. Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 

Therefore, without Christ, the Ephesians were " aliens 
from the common vvealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
covenants of promise ;" but with Christ, i. e., by embracing 
Christ, they become members of the Jewish commonwealth 
or church, and were no longer strangers from the covenants 
of promise. If embracing Christ did not constiiute them 
members of the commonwealth of Israel ; then they were 
aliens still, and there is no sense in Paul's remark M at that 
time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel." 

But why should the believing Gentiles be represented as 
becoming " fellow-citizens" — a fellow-heirs," (3 : 6) and 
members of the commonwealth of Israel, if a new church 
was organized under the gospel dispensation ? 

In the 14th verse, the apostle informs us, that Christ had 
" broken down the middle wall of partition" between Jews 
and Gentiles, so that both were one. Our Saviour, also de- 
clares, John 10 : 16, " And other sheep I have, which are 
not of this fold : them also I must bring and they shall hear 
my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." 

Now, the fair inference is, that when those other sheep of 
Christ's were brought, they were received into the same fold. 
Or did the Lord Jesus Christ destroy that fold, and build a 
new one ? 

And when he broke down the " middle wall of partition" 
did he destroy the fold ? Or enlarge and improve it for the 
accommodation of a more numerous flock. 



88 constitution of the 

Inspired Names. 

The church and people of God bear the same inspired 
names, both in the Old and New Testament. The Rev. 
James Eels in his " conversation on Baptism," p. 29, 30, 
gives the following list of names and proof texts. ** The 
churchy Acts 7 : 38, with 8 : 1. God's heritage, Jer. 12 : 
7-9, with 1 Pet. 5 : 3. His portion, Deut. 32 : 9, with 
Zech. 2 : 12. The people of God, Heb. 11 : 25, with 1 
Pet. 2 : 10 — Rom. 9 : 25. God's peculiar people, Deut. 
14 : 2, with Titus 2 : 14. His chosen people, 1 Chron. 14 : 

1, and Ex. 19 : 5, 6, with 1 Pet. 2 : 9. Children of God, 
Deut. 14 : 1, with Rom. 9 : 26. Sons of God, Ex. 4 : 22, 
23, with 1 John 3 : 1. Saints, Ps. 148 : 13, and 149 : 1, 

2, with Phil. 1 : 1." &c. Let the reader diligently com- 
pare, and then decide whether the Old and New Testament 
church were one, or distinct bodies. 

Facts and Reasons. 

1. If a new church was organized when Christ came, or 
under the gospel dispensation, where is the history of the 
fact? 

Would inspired writers pass over so important an event 
without recording the fact ? 

2. We have unequivocal evidence that there was a church 
in existence during the ministry of our Saviour. Matt. 18 : 
17, " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
church : But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen man, and a publican." The reader 
will remember that the ceremonial dispensation continued 
until the death of Christ : hence the Saviour and his disciples 
observed the Old Testament Sabbath — the passover, and fes. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 89 

tivals peculiar to the Jewish nation. Yet here we find a 
church under the Old Testament dispensation, the authority 
of which is acknowledged by the Saviour himself, who also 
gives instruction to the members, how to proceed in the dis» 
cipline of an offending member of said church. 

Now, either the Lord Jesus Christ had organized a new 
church under the Old Testament dispensation ; or the church 
alluded to in Matt. 18 : 17 was the Old Testament church, 
and the only true church of God on earth. 

3. Zachariah and Elizabeth, the father and mother of John 
the Baptist ; Joseph, the reputed father, and Mary the mo* 
ther of Jesus ; Good old Simeon, and Anna the prophetess, 
were all members of the Old Testament church. Zachari- 
ah was a regular and acknowledged priest of that church. 
Even the Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and the twelve 
apostles were members of the same church, received the rite 
of circumcision, and " kept the law of Moses." When did 
they leave the old church, and unite with the new ? Will 
our opponents inform us when and where they changed their 
church relations ? 

4. The oracles of God, or sacred Scriptures, were com- 
mitted to the Old Testament church ; and it was more than 
twenty years after the crucifixion of our Saviour before any 
of the books of the New Testament were written. Now 
if a new church was organised under the gospel dispensation, 
and had an inspired rule of faith, and practice ; then the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament church must have been that 
rule; therefore both churches had the same inspired rule of 
faith and practice. Reader, did God organise a new church 

under the old constitution ; or without any constitution. Did 
the Old and New churches essentially differ, while both re- 
ceived and adopted the same rule of faith and pract : ce ? 

5. If a new church was organised during the time of our 



90 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

Saviour, what were the rites, sacraments and ordinances of 
the new church % The Lord's Supper, and baptism in the 
name of the Trinity, were not practiced until the close of the 
Saviour's ministry ; and the first day of the week was not 
ordained the Christian Sabbath, until after the resurrection 
of our Lord. Did the new church adopt the ordinances of the 
old; such as circumcision, the passover, Jewish festivals 
and rituals i That Christ and his apostles observed these, is 
certain. 

We might multiply facts and reasons to much greater ex- 
tent, but we deem it unnecessary. "With what we have pre- 
sented under this head, let the reader decide whether " The 
Old and New Testament church is one and the same church 
under different dispensations ;" or two totally distinct church- 
es. Let him decide when and where so important a change 
occurred, before concluding or in fe ring that such a change has 
taken place. 

II. The covenant of the true visible church of God is the 
same under both Old and New Testament dispensations. 

We read in 1 Chron. 16: 15, 16, 17, " Be ye mindful 
always of his covenant : the word which he commanded to 
a thousand generations. Even of the covenant which he 
made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac: And hath 
confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for 
an everlasting covenant." God said to Abraham, Gen. 17 : 
7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and 
thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting 
covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." 
This covenant therefore was to be an everlasting covenant 
to a thousand generations. 

Now we do not insist, that by everlasting in the text end- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 91 

less duration is intended ; or that we must understand by a 
-'thousand generations" just one thousand. But does " a 
thousand generations," mean only forty -tic o generations— 
the number from Abraham to Christ, according to Matt. 1 : 
17 ? Were the inspired writers guilty of such wild, random 
declarations, asserting a thing in round numbers when they 
did not in fact mean the twentieth part of that sum '? The 
Rev. Isaac Clinton in his treatise observes, p. 19, 20, " When 
a thousand is used for an indefinite number, it means as ma- 
ny as there be. Job 9 : 8, " He cannot answer him one of 
a thousand." The meaning is, one of all that he hath. 
Ps. 50 : 10, " The cattle upon the thousand hills are mine.*' 
The meaning is, all the hills over all the world. So in these 
passages where the covenant of Abraham is said to be com- 
manded for a thousand generations, the meaning is (either) 
an exact thousand ; or else all the generations from that 
time afterwards, to the end of the world." 

The word everlasting certainly denotes the largest possible 
period, of which the circumstances will admit. Now, as the 
covenant with Abraham promised blessings to " all the na- 
tions of the earth, the longest possible period is, to the end 
of time ; or to the end of all the nations of the earth. This 
conclusion seems inevitable. 

One thing is certain, this covenant with the promise, seal 
and oath of God, to make it sure, will continue in force un- 
til it is fulfilled in every part. Our opponents must admit 
this, or implicate the character of God. Now w r hat did this 
covenant promise, and has it all been fulfilled, is the question 
at issue. Will our opponents maintain that Abraham has 
already been the father of all believers ; and that all the na- 
tions and families of the earth have already been blessed in 
him? If not, then God's everlasting covenant, to a thou- 
sand generations is still the covenant of the church ; and the 
9 



92 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

spiritual blessings enjoyed by the nations of the earth, are 
but the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham 
when he gave him his holy covenant. 

Perhaps our opponents will argue, that the land of Ca- 
naan was promised Israel for an "everlasting possession" 
but that Israel long since lost possession, and other nations 
now possess Canaan : hence the word everlasting is limited 
to the duration of the Jewish dispensation. 

But let our opponents first prove, that the seed of Abra- 
ham will never return and re-occupy their ancient Canaan, 
before they risk too much upon this argument. The fact 
that the Jews have been driven from their ancient inheri- 
tance, for their wickedness, by no means proves the expira- 
tion of God's charter to Abraham, and his seed. We might 
as well argue that Israel's title to Canaan expired with their 
captivity, because they were carried from their country, and 
an enemy possessed the land. 

Now we affirm that the New Testament church was organ- 
ized under this same covenant — the covenant that promised 
spiritual blessings to all nations : And if the Old Testament 
church was not based upon this spiritual covenant, then it 
must have been a church without spiritual blessings, and 
without a Saviour. God never made but one covenant with 
man that promised the Messiah, and that was the covenant 
with Abraham — the everlasting covenant, of which circum- 
cision was the appointed seal during the dispensation of bloody 
rites. 

New Testament Church Covenant. 

1. New Testament saints recognized the Abrahamic cov- 
enant as the grand charter of all the spiritual blessings enjoy- 
ed by the church under the gospel dispensation. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 93 

Luke 1 : 72, 73, Zachariah speaking by the spirit of God, 
declares that Jesus Christ " came to perform the mercy 
promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant^ 
the oath which he swore to our father Abraham.'* God's 
holy covenant, therefore promised Jesus Christ, and must 
have been consequently the covenant of the New Testament 
church. 

2. The apostle Paul expressly declares that the Gentiles 
were interested in the Abrahamic covenant, and that its 
promises and provisions respected all the finally redeemed. 

Gal. 3 : 13. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, curs- 
ed is every one that hangeth on a tree. 

14. " That the blessing of Abraham might come on the 
Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the 
promise of the spirit through faith. 

15. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; 
Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no 
man disannulled or addeth thereto. 

16. " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made : He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of 
one, And to thy seed which is Christ.' 5 

Now if the apostle means anything, he certainly means 
that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant came upon the 
Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; and that instead of doing 
aivay, the Saviour actually confirmed and established the 
covenant ; so that it cannot be disannulled, but remains the 
covenant of the true visible church, and will, until the con- 
summation of the promise " In thee shall all the nations of 
the earth be blessed." 

3. Let the reader compare Rom. 4 : 11, with Gal. 3 : 7, 
8. " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncir- 



94 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

cumcised, that he might be the father of all them that be- 
lieve, though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness 
might be imputed unto them also. Know ye therefore that 
they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abra- 
ham. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed.' 5 

Now, according to the argument of Paul, Gentile Chris- 
tians under the gospel dispensation, were the spiritual chil- 
dren of Abraham by virtue of God's covenant with Abra- 
ham : hence the apostle adds in connection with the above, 
(verse 29) "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed and heirs according to the 'promise" The rea- 
der has only to consult the covenant of circumcision and he 
will find the promise, " Thou shalt be a father of many na- 
tions :" And in Rom. 4 : 16, 17, Paul decides that this 
promise related to a spiritual seed. Now to suppose that 
Gentiles enjoyed blessings promised in the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, and yet were under a totally distinct covenant, is cer- 
tainly a singular conclusion. It would seem most reasonable 
to infer that the covenant which conferred spiritual blessings 
was the covenant of the church ; and that since the cove- 
nant of circumcision embraced the Messiah, and constituted 
Abraham the father of all believers, it would therefore re- 
main the constitution of the church in every age of the 
world. But according to the objector, the old obsolete Jew- 
ish constitution, still blesses the nations of the earth ! 

4. The sameness of the Old and New Testament church 
covenant is conclusively shown in the argument of the apos- 
tle concerning the Jewish olive-tree. Rom. 11: 17, "If 
some of the branches (Jewish church members) be broken 
off, and thou (Gentile) being a wild olive-tree wert graffed 
in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fat- 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 96 

ness of the olive-tree," (v. 18.) " Boast not against the 
branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but 
the root thee." Now if believing Gentiles were grafted into 
the Jewish stock or root, then they were under the same cov- 
enant, and in the same church, unless this be true, there is no 
point or force in the apostle's argument. Why should he ar- 
gue the point, that some o^ihe natural branches were broken off 
for unbelief — that believing Gentiles were grafted in among the 
branches that remained — -that Gentiles were not the root or 
stock — and that the "Jews should be grafted into their own 
olive-tree again, should they not abide in unbelief, if both 
Jew and Gentile were under a new covenant 1 

5. Paul argues the identity, or sameness of the Old and 
New Testament church covenant in his allegory of the two 
covenants. Gal. 4 : 22, 23, 24. " For it is written that 
Abraham had two sons ; the one by a bond-maid, the other 
by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was 
born after the flesh ; but he of the free-woman was by 
promise. Which things are an allegory : for these are 
the two covenants ; the one from the mount Sinai which 
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Now reader, the 
Sinaic covenant could not be the Abrahamic covenant, be- 
cause the latter was made more than 400 years before the 
covenant at Sinai ; or as the apostle reasons. Gal. 3 : 17, 
The Law was 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant. 
As one covenant therefore was from " the mount Sinai," 
the other must be the Abrahamic. Of this there can be no 
doubt, for the apostle immediately adds, v. 28, " Now w r e 
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," i. e., 
the children of the covenant made with x\braham, and which 
not only promised the Messiah, but also that Abraham 
should be " a father of many nations," or of all believers in 
every age and nation. 
9* 



96 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

That we do not mistake the meaning of the apostle or per- 
vert the allegory, is certain from the following considera- 
tions : 1. The design of the apostle, is to cut off all legal 
dependence, and show the impossibility of justification by the 
law. Hence he asks in the 21st verse, " Tell me, ye that 
desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ?" 22nd 
verse, " For it is written, that Abraham had two sons :" &c. 
The apostle now goes on to draw a contrast between the 
Abrahamic and Sinaic covenants. 

The Sinaic covenant was a heavy yoke, a sort of hondage^ 
and Jerusalem and her children were still in bondage, be- 
cause the Jews as a nation rejected Jesus Christ, and insisted 
upon the law with all its burdensome rituals. The bond-wo- 
man was therefore a fit type of earthly Jerusalem, maintaining 
a costly, laborious ritual dispensation, which had been " im- 
posed until the time of reformation." 

But Paul immediately marks the distinction between the 
children of the legal, Sinaic covenant, in bondage; and the 
children of promise, i. e., of the Abrahamic covenant, which 
promised the Messiah and consequent spiritual blessings. 
They were under the same covenant with Isaac, hence were 
the "children of promise," as Isaac was \ and consequently 
belonged to, or were the heirs of, "Jerusalem which is above, 
which, says the apostle, is mother of us all." The 31st 
verse is triumphant and conclusive, " So then, brethren, we 
are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free ;" we 
are not under the Sinaic covenant which is fulfilled, and no 
longer obligatory ; but under the Abrahamic covenant — the 
everlasting covenant — to a thousand generations, and which 
embraced all the nations of the earth. 

2. The apostle speaks of two covenants — " the one from 
Mount Sinai," and affirms that Gentile believers are not un- 
der the Sinaic covenant. Now if our opponents object to 



ABRAHAM1C CHURCH. 97 

our exposition, then let them show what covenant the apostle 
Paul alludes to, in the contrast, which did embrace Gentile 
believers, if the Abrahamic covenant does not. But if the 
Abrahamic covenant did embrace the Gentiles in its promi- 
ses and provisions, then the Old and New Testament church 
covenant is one and the same covenant under both dispensa- 
tions. 

Now we affirm that neither the giving, or doing away 
of the Sinaic law, or covenant, could change in substance or 
effect the Abrahamic covenant, since the latter had no ne- 
cessary connection with the former. Hence, Paul argues 
Gal. 3 : "And this I say, that the covenant that was confirm- 
ed before, of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years 
after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none 
effect." The law therefore was no part of the Abrahamic 
covenant, but a totally distinct transaction. There would 
be no force or propriety in the apostle's allegory, or in say- 
ing " these are the two covenants, the one from the Mount 
Sinai ;" if the Abrahamic and Sinaic were one in any sense. 
To argue that the Abrahamic covenant is done away, or no 
longer obligatory because the Sinaic has received its fulfill- 
ment, is about as much in point, as it would be to argue that 
the constitution of the state of New-York is done away, be- 
cause some act or provision of the " Revised Statutes" had 
passed away by limitation. There is no escape from the 
conclusion, that if, by "two covenants," the apostle intends 
to include the Abrahamic as one of them ; then the church 
under the gospel dispensation is based upon the Abrahamic 
covenant ; and thus Gentiles receive, or enjoy " the blessings 
of Abraham through Jesus Christ." 

6. We prove the sameness of the Old and New Testament 
church covenant, from the sameness of the Old and New 
Testament religion. That the religion should be the same 



9S CONSTITUTION OF THE 

under both dispensations, and the church covenant distinct, is 
an absusdity upon the face of the subject. It would be, in 
effect, arguing that the church covenant had no particular 
connection with the religion of the church. Yet this must 
be substantially the position of our opponents, unless they 
maintain that the religion of the Old and New Testament is 
not the same. 

But was not the " gospel preached unto Abraham ?" Gal. 
3: 8. And does not Paul declare that the gospel was preached 
to the Israelites in the wilderness ? Heb. 4 : 2. Were not 
Old Testament saints saved by the same system of salvation, 
that gave redemption to the New Testament saints ? That 
the Old Testament inculcates the same doctrines, and the 
same system of salvation with the New, is absolutely cer- 
tain, unless God has erred, and set one part of revelation at 
variance with the other ! We have already shewn that every 
Israelite was bound by the command of Jehovah to " love God 
with all his heart, soul, mind and strength ; and his neighbor 
as himself." Let our opponents shew that God now requires 
something different — or something that involves more than su- 
preme love to God. We have also shown that the "golden 
rule," Matt. 7 : 3 2, " Therefore all things whatsoever ye would 
that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them," was 
God's appointed rule for Old Testament saints ; yea, the whole 
nation of Israel were bound by this stern moral precept. Will 
our opponents inform us where the New Testament incul- 
cates higher and holier principles ? 

We therefore repeat the question, If the religion of the 
Old and New Testament is substantially the same, then 
where is the occasion for a new church covenant ? Where 
is the necessity for a new constitution for the same church, 
and the same religion ? The very idea of such a change is 
grossly absurd. 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 99 

Perhaps our opponents will endeavor to break the force of 
this argument by assuming that the Sinaic covenant embrac- 
ed the substance of the religion of the Old Testament church, 
and was therefore, the covenant of the church. 

But we deny that the Sinaic covenant was ever given, c r 
designed of God to be the basis of the Old Testament church, 
or her religion. Had Old Testament saints no church — ro 
religion previous to the giving of the law ? The simple fac's 
are these : When God gave the Old Testament church 
the ceremonial dispensation, he ordained the Sinaic cove- 
nant, which embraced that dispensation ; and when the cer- 
emonial dispensation was fulfilled, and ceased to be obligato- 
ry ; then the Sinaic covenant also passed away, because 
fulfilled. God gave this covenant to the church, but not as 
the basis of the church ; as the apostle expressly informs us 
" it was imposed until the time of reformation." But will 
our opponents maintain that the religion of Old Testament 
saints was essentially changed by the giving of the Sinaic 
covenant ? If not, how could the doing away of that cove- 
nant essentially change it ? Does a change in heaven-ap- 
pointed rites and forms change the essential character of re- 
ligion ? 

Let our opponents assume that the essential character of 
religion depends upon the rites and ceremonies of the church, 
and they at once disrobe Christianity of its chief gloiy, its 
inherent moral excellency ; and reduce it to a name — a 
mere shell, liable to become a system of graceless externals, 
to which the vilest may conform ! Rites and ceremonies 
are but symbols — -forms of worship, or means of grace, and 
essential because ordained of God ; but " vain oblations." 
and unavailing without a religion deeper toned than mere 
externals. It reflects little honor upon the Divine character 
to make him the author of a worldly covenant, which exacts 



100 CONSTITUTION OF THE 

the " anise, mint, and cummin" in externals, but dispenses 
with the heart. 

While speaking of the Sinaic covenant, we are in the 
neighborhood of an argument frequently employed by our 
opponents to set aside the covenant of the Old Testament 
church, and prove that a new covenant was given to the 
church under the gospel ; to which we now call attention. 
We are referred to Heb. 8 : 7, 8, " For if that first cove- 
nant had been faultless, then should no place have been 
sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, 
" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make 
a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah." 

This, our opponents consider unequivocal, and conclusive, 
in favor of a " new church covenant." But alas ! the very 
next verse, 9th, ruins the whole argument, for the apostle 
adds, " Not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them 
out of the land of Egypt." So then this first covenant 
which gave place to the second, and new covenant was 
simply the Sinaic covenant, made, not with Abraham, but with 
Israel and Judea, more than 400 years after the Abrahamic 
covenant! ! If there is the remnant of a doubt in the rea- 
der's mind, in relation to our explanation and application of 
this passage, we ask him to read the chapter, and also the 
next, where the same subject is continued. 

Now we argue from this same passage that the Abrahamic 
covenant was received and acknowledged as the covenant of 
the New Testament church in the days of the apostles. 
Why should the apostle Paul particularly specify the Sinaic 
covenant, if both were done away ? Why should " the house 
of Israel and Judah" be named in this connection, if both 
Jew and Gentile under the gospel dispensation, were under 



ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 101 

a new and disi ; nct covenant from the Abrahamic 1 The 
real design of Paul is obvious, God's ancient covenant people 
had the promise of the Messiah, and of a change in their rit- 
ual dispensation ; hence the apostle immediately adds verse 
10, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the 
house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put 
my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts : 
and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a peo- 
ple." This verse is quoted from Ex. 31 : 33, and proves 
that in the fulfillment and removal of the ceremonial dispen- 
sation, or Sinaic covenant, and in giving the gospel, God con- 
firmed his promise to his covenant people. 

There is a single point to which we advert before leaving 
this branch of our subject. Many do not distinguish be- 
tween the fulfillment, and abrogation or repeal of a law. 
Jesus Christ carefully informed his hearers that he came to 
fulfill, and not to abolish, or abrogate the law, or Sinaic cov- 
enant: Matt. 5 : 17, "Think not that I am come to destroy 
the law or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but 
to fulfill." The Sinaic covenant, or law was therefore 
fulfilled, and of course a new covenant or dispensation was 
admissible. But while Jesus Christ fulfilled the Sinaic cov- 
enant, he confirmed the promise, or Abrahamic covenant, 
which promised the Messiah. He was therefore the minis- 
ter of the circumcision, for the truth of God to confirm the 
promises made unto the fathers." 

Now let our opponents show, that the "covenant that was 
confirmed before of God in Christ," and which embraced all 
nations, is fulfilled and, therefore, no longer obligatory. 
Such proof alone can justify the reader in rejecting the Abra- 
hamic covenant, as the constitution of the present church. 



TEXT BOOK 



ON 



BAPTISM. 



INFANT BAPTISM VINDICATED, 



AND 



DIFFERENT MODES 



OF 



EQUAL VALIDITY. 



BY ROBERT H. CONKLIN. 

It 



SPRINGFIELD : 

PRINTED BY JOHN M. WOOD, 

1847. 



PREFACE. 



This volume is offered to the Christian public, not only in com" 
pliance with the advice and counsel of many distinguished gospel 
ministers of different faith and order ; but also from the honest con- 
viction, that, as the subject is presented in a somewhat neio and 
original light, and peculiarly adapted to every class of readers, it 
will be useful in the church of Christ as a " Text Book or? Bap- 
tism." It goes into the world with the humble prayer of the au- 
thor, that it may be useful— that it may enlighten the ignorant — 
guide the erring — confirm and establish in truth the doubting — 
strengthen the weak, and contribute to restore the entire christian 
church to apostolic faith and practice. It is designed not as a substi- 
tute for the many valuable treatises already in circulation ; but as an 
auxiliary—Si kindred, fellow laborer " Earnestly contending for the 
faith once delivered to the saints." 

That this volume will experience the common ordeal to which 
theological controversy is subjected, is possible ; nor does the author 
plead any " exemption act," in his own behalf, or beg an unmolested 
passage for his work. He simply claims such Christian courtesy and 
candor, as a. generous opponent always bestows; he asks a patient, 
prayerful examination of the arguments submitted for the consid- 
eration of the reader, before rebuke is administered, or condemna- 
tion pronounced. 

The author has availed himself of standard writers on both sides 
of the question ; and has frequently quoted such authorities. He has 
endeavored faithfully aud impartially to exhibit authorities when 
presented, either by quoting the substance or language; and if injus* 
tice has been done to any, correction will be gratefully acknowledged. 

That the work has some defects both in language and style, is al- 
together probable ; but as the author has discovered none that mate- 
rially change, or affect the sense, he commends such imperfections 
to the candor and forbearance of the reader. 

The Author. 

March 24th, 1847. 



«- 



*o 



PART SECOND. 

INFANT BAPTISM. 

NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 

MATTHEW, 28 : 19, 

u Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

In presenting the New Testament argument in favor of 
infant church membership, and consequently infant bap- 
tism, we are usually met at the door of the discussion with 
the emphatic question " Where is a 'Thus saith the Lord? 
for infant baptism— a Divine warrant ?" As if a com- 
mand, or duty originating in the Old Testament, must be 
repeated in the New, before it could be obligatory ! We 
believe, that this question is the result of entire mistaken 
views, relative to the " Constitution of the Church;" we 
consider it, therefore, important to refresh the mind of our 
reader, with our remarks upon that subject. Part First 
p. 10—14 

1. To organize society, civil or religious, some compact or con* 
stitution is necessary, as the basis of such society. The very word 
organization, involves the idea of some arrangement or agreement^ 
expressed or understood, which constitutes the bond of union, and 
forms a rule of action for such organization. When men unite for 
purposes of government, or any other object, a constitution is the 
preliminary measure — it is laying the corner-stone, or the foundation 



106 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



upon which the whole superstructure must rest. If you would learn 
the character and design of such society — the conditions of member- 
ship, the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of its members, go to 
the constitution. This position is so obvious, that argument seems 
unnecessary. Our relations as citizens of America, in every form, 
illustrate and inculcate this truth. Are you a foreigner, and would 
you become a naturalized citizen of this Republic ? You must swear 
to support the constitution. Would you exercise the duties of an of- 
ficer under our government ? You must first swear to support the 
constitution. 

So in the Divine administration. When God organized his church 
in the family of Abraham, a covenant or constitution was necessary ; 
and God accordingly made an everlasting covenant with Abraham 
and his seed. We say constitution or covenant, not because we 
mean to affirm that the two words mean precisely the same thing 
under all circumstances. But the covenant of circumcision, as we 
shall endeavor to prove, was emphatically the constitution of the 
Church, since without compliance with the conditions of that cove- 
nant not a member of Abraham's family could enjoy the blessings or 
privileges promised. Yes ; God and his people must treat him as an 
alien and foreigner because he had not subscribed and sworn to sup- 
port the constitution of Israel. Hence, God ordained that the " un- 
circumcised soul should be cut off from his people,'' as a covenant 
breaker, or one who would not keep covenant with God. And that 
covenant, as we shall prove, bound every man, who accepted its con- 
ditions, to worship the God of Abraham, and maintain the ordi- 
nances of the true religion. In other words, it bound him to obedi? 
ence, perpetual and perfect. 

Again : The constitution or covenant of the Abrahamic church, 
defined the conditions of membership, the duties and privileges en- 
joyed and imposed — all clearly set forth and enforced by considera- 
tions as imperious and weighty, as the authority of God and endless 
destiny of man could make them. Will our opponents take the sin- 
gular position that the church in Abraham's day had no constitution ? 
We think not, unless they maintain the equally absurd sentiment, 
that a constitution is not essential to the organization of any society. 

2, The reader must not infer the revision or repeal of the con- 
stitution of the church. We should remember, that the revision or 
repeal of a law, must be as explicit and unequivocal as the enactment* 
The power that framed the constitution must revoke it ? before it 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 107 

ceases to be obligatory. Multitudes are misled and fall into error for 
the want of information and proper instruction upon this point. 
They read the New Testament and discover that changes have oc- 
curred in the old dispensation, hence infer that the constitution of 
the church is altogether new, and must bear date from the introduc- 
tion of the Christian dispensation. Such individuals are guilty of 
great impropriety, in looking for a new constitution for the church, 
simply because certain rites and ceremonies, once typical, have been 
fulfilled, and consequently given place toothers. What would be 
thought of the intelligence of a lawyer who should infer the repeal 
of the constitution of the State of New York, because in the year 
1830 the State published the " Revised Statutes?" A school boy 
would point such a lawyer to the history of the State, not to look 
for " Revised Statutes," but to find a public, formal repeal of the 
constitution. And such a public, formal repeal of the constitution 
of a State, would be resolving it into the original disorganized ele- 
ments. 

So in the constitution of the church; a change of dispensations 
may be a simple revision or change, in rites and ceremonies that 
does not affect the constitution. The apostle Paul, speaking in Heb. 
9; 9, 10, of those very rites and ceremonies, declares they were " im- 
posed until the time of reformation." Now reader, mark, a " time of 
reformation" does not imply destruction ; or any fundamental change 
in a church ; but simple improvement and greater purity of charac- 
ter. The repeal of the constitution of the church would necessarily 
involve the disorganization of the church. A change of such mag- 
nitude — revolutionary, or rather disorganizing the church of God, 
would not be a private act — a " thing done in a corner." Where 
then we inquire, is the public, formal act of repealing the old con- 
stitution, and ordaining the new as the present charter of the church ? 
Let the candid reader be consistent and demand chapter and verse — 
a " Thus saith the Lord," before he abandons that constitution or 
covenant, which God ratified with his ancient Israel. Where is the 
act recorded ? 

There is a law maxim, which applies to the subject now under 
consideration with peculiar force. Lexstat dum ratio manet, i. e., 
The law stands while the reason remains. This law principle is em- 
phatically true not only in its application to human government and 
laws, but also in the divine administration. We might suppose men 

10* 



108 INFANT BAPTISM. 

guilty of the folly of changing constitutions and laws, while the rea- 
sons for their adoption originally, still remained; but shall we im- 
pute such weakness to Him, who is the u same yesterday, to-day and 
forever?" Therefore, if our opponents maintain that the original 
constitution of the church is abolished, let them prove, that the rea- 
sons for that constitution no longer exist, and that human society, 
our relations to God and man, have so materially changed, that the 
church of God^demands a new constitution : or let them furnish un- 
equivocal evidence of a change of her constitution, and we will be 
satisfied, that in the Divine mind, the reasons for such a change ex- 
isted. We hold ourselves responsible for the proof, that God gave 
the Abrahamic church a constitution, defining the conditions, privi- 
leges and duties of membership ; while the labor of proving the re- 
peal of that constitution, is the task of objectors. 

The reader guided by these general principles, which we conceive 
to be sound and logical, will find the course of investigation simple 
and easy. He is not on a tour exploring mythologies, and consult- 
ing strange oracles, whose mysterious and doubtful language only 
adds obscurity to darkness. But to understand the laws and usages 
of the church of God, he goes to her organization and consults her 
constitution with the honest inquiry, what does that teach ? What 
were the conditions of admission then? Who were received into 
covenant relation then? What were the rites and duties, the privi- 
leges, promises, and responsibilities then ? Now the reader is pre- 
pared to consult the history of the church and see if her constitution, 
has been revised or repealed ; and if so, what changes have occurred, 
and what reasons have existed for such changes. Hence, the reader 
does not commence the study of inspired history, where inspired 
history ends. No : the Old Testament — God's earliest and first rev- 
elation to man ; is his first lesson ; and, instead of beginning, he 
ends with the New Testament — God's last revelation to man. 

Commencing with the New Testament, the study of the constitu- 
tion, and history of the church, is about as wise, and philosophical, as 
it would be, to commence studying the political history of the Uni- 
ted States, by an examination of documents and papers relating to 
the acts of the 27th Congress. Or seek to know the occasion of the 
American Revolution by consulting the Articles of Peace ratified after 
the war. Would you reason intelligently upon this point, read all 
that God has revealed. 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 109 

The examination of the Old Testament Scriptures, with 
reference to this subject, has led us to the following con- 
clusions ; nor do we see how our opponents can possibly 
avoid these same conclusions, with even a plausible argu- 
ment. 

First : we have shown, that the Old Testament church, 
organized under the covenant of circumcision, was the 
true visible church of God ; and that infants were divinely 
constituted members of the church by the same religious 
rite that constituted adults members. 

Secondly : we have shown that the Old and New Tes- 
tament church is one and the same church, under different 
dispensations ; but based upon the same covenant, viz. the 
covenant of circumcision. 

We are now prepared, intelligently to enter upon the 
examination of this subject in the New Testament, and in- 
quire whether there has been any change in the policy ; 
or alteration of the constitution of the church, calculated 
materially to affect the relation and standing of the chil- 
dren of believers, and cast them out of the church. Has 
the coming of Jesus Christ cut them off from public, visi- 
ble covenant relation with the church, so that the initiating 
rite is denied them? Do they sustain no other visible 
covenant relation than the offspring of unbelievers ? Or 
does " God's everlasting covenant" still confer all the privi- 
leges enjoyed by Jewish parents ; and promise all the bles- 
sings set forth by the declaration, " I will be a God unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee?" May believing parents 
still enter publicly into covenant with God, and bring their 
children with them as being also included in the covenant? 
That the latter is true, we will now undertake to establish 
in the following order. 

I. The children of God's believing people sustain sub- 



110 INFANT BAPTISM. 

stantially the same relation to the true visible church now f 
that they did before Christ came, and consequently should 
be baptized. 

II. The true visible church has practiced Infant Bap- 
tism since the days of the Apostles. 

I. The children of God's believing people sustain sub- 
stantially the same relation to the true visible church now, 
that they did before Christ came, and consequently should 
be baptized. 

Testimony may be of two kinds — direct, and indirect : 
or positive and circumstantial. This remark is as true in 
its application to Scripture doctrine; as in civil transac- 
tions. There is this difference however : in civil transac- 
tions the truth of the remark is never denied, while in 
religious controversy, it is very convenient to challenge 
conclusions, when hard pressed with arguments drawn from 
collateral reasoning, or from indirect and circumstantial 
evidence, and demand an explicit " Thus saith the Lord ;" 
an incontrovertible command. Such a mode of reasoning, ' 
if admitted, would divest theology of settled doctrines, and 
scarcely leave us with the existence of a God I Who does 
not know, that even the " Ten Commandments" specify 
but a small part of what is really inculcated, and that many 
conclusions, admitted and acted upon, by the christian 
world, are but inferences ? Who will pretend that there 
is an express law for observing the " First day of the week" 
as the christian sabbath ? Do we not infer it, after glean- 
ing from scripture and history the circumstantial evidence 
that the apostles and primitive christians were divinely in- 
structed to remember the u First day of the week" as the 
" Lord's day ?" Where is the command ; or the example in 
the New Testament for female communion ? Were females 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. Ill 

present when the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ori- 
ginally instituted? Does the apostle say "Let a woman ex- 
amine herself and so let her eat of that bread, and drink of 
that cup?" No: neither command, nor example can be 
found on the inspired record ; but we infer from the na. 
ture and design of the sacrament, that females have a di- 
vine right to unite in celebrating the supper of our com- 
mon Lord. The same might be said in relation to many 
other things, wherein the christian world unite in receiving 
indirect, or circumstantial evidence, as the only evidence 
going to establish certain great principles, by which chris- 
tian duty may be inferred. Hence to insist upon an une- 
quivocal, direct command for each duty, would legitimate- 
ly lead to the abandonment and rejection of most of the 
outward forms of Christianity : it would be in effect, sub- 
stituting knowledge for belief, and reducing all matters of 
faith and practice to a moral demonstration! 

Now we might reasonably suppose that the same mode 
of argumentation which leads us to infer duty in regard to 
the christian sabbath, female communion, &c. would be 
equally satisfactory in support of infant church member- 
ship : that if the visible covenant relation of children ten- 
ded to impress obligation upon believing parents, and con- 
sequently secured a greater measure of fidelity in " bring- 
ing them up in the mature and admonition of the Lord," 
then we might infer duty on the ground of utility. But 
x 'no" say our opponents in their objections to infant bap- 
tism, " Give us a i Thus saith the Lord ; for your practice." 
Again t we might suppose, that if it could be shown, that 
God provided^ in the constitution of the church, for in- 
fant church membership ; and that scripture is silent, as 
to any change or repeal, materially affecting the covenant 
relation of children, then the inference would necessarily 



112 INFANT BAPTISM. 

follow ?? The children of God's people are still in covenant 
relation with the church." But no : our opponents must 
have a " Thus saith the Lord" from the New Testament ; 
or apostolic examples so clear that every lingering doubt 
gives way ; or the seed of Abraham's children must be 
cast out of the visible church ; although no repeal of the 
ancient charter can be found on the inspired record. 

But let not our reader suppose that we design to base 
infant church membership upon mere inferences. We 
have, in this place simply anticipated the nature and form 
of the main objection; that our reader, throughout the 
length and breadth of our New Testament argument, may 
the better judge of the relative strength of each position^ 
and the soundness of our conclusions. 

We shall endeavor to prove to the satisfaction of our 
reader, that infant church membership is not an innovation, 
or novel institution — a corruption of Christianity ; but is 
founded on the express law and constitution of the church 
of God; that it fully accords with the i)recepts > and with 
the practice of the apostolic church : that it is sanctioned 
by reason and christian experience — urged by the consid- 
eration of its utility : and finally, that through every age 
and period of Christianity, Ecclesiastical History traces it 
as a standing Order and Institution of the true visible 
church of God. 

Law and Testimony. 

When Abraham entered into covenant with God, it was 
with the understanding, and upon the express condition 
that all of the male members of his household should also 
receive the seal of the same covenant and consequently be- 
come members of the same church, and profess the same 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. H3 

religion. Had Abraham refused, or neglected to place the 
rite of circumcision upon his offspring, God would have 
excluded him from the rights and privileges of that same 
covenant; and that circumcision did constitute the seed of 
Abraham members of the true visible church, is absolutely 
certain from the fact, 1. That the uncircumcised soul was 
cut off from the people of God. 2. The uncircumcised 
person was excluded from the ordinances of the church. 
3. God excluded the uncircumcised from his sanctuary. 
Gen. 17; 14. Ex. 12; 48. Ez. 44; 9. How could an 
Israelite be a member of the visible church, if " cut off from 
the people of God," and excluded from the sanctuary of 
God, and from the ordinances of the church ? And what 
greater privileges would church members enjoy, so far as 
the worship of the " Living and true God" is concerned, 
than to be numbered with God's people, have a place in his 
sanctuary, and access to the ordinances of the true reli- 
gion 1 But it seems unnecessary to argue this point, since 
our opponents very generally admit that children were 
constituted members of the Jewish church, and were under 
the covenant of circumcision. See Part I, p. 59, 60. 

But then the question recurs again ; If God put the chil- 
dren of his people in the church, how do our opponents 
get them oat of the church? By what authority do they act 
in excluding from covenant and church relation the seed 
of Abraham's children ? Where is a " Thus saith the Lord," 
for this departure from the original constitution and usage 
of God's visible church — this innovation upon the rights 
and privileges of parents professing godliness? If the 
"amending or repealing act," casting the children of be- 
lievers out of the church, is on record, then let our oppo- 
nents produce that " act ;" or incontrovertible evidence of 
such-" act ;" but not ask us to infer a change of the con- 



114 INFANT BAPTISM. 

stitution of the church, from certain controverted positions 
of their own ! God, by solemn, formal covenant transac* 
lion " has joined together" in church relation, his profes- 
sing people and their infant offspring ; and u let not mail 
put asunder" until the Divine Law-giver shall revoke his 
own Constitution, and dissolve the long cherished covenant 
relation of children. Let no mere inference ; or doubtful 
interpretation of Scripture, be a substitute in the mind of 
our reader for the " Law of Repeal/ 7 Do our opponents 
plead the " silence of the New Testament" touching infant 
church membership, and consequently infant baptism ? — 
Silence is no evidence of change. But silence is evidence 
that the Constitution of the church is unchanged, and that 
the rejection of infant church membership, is upon mere 
human responsibility, and in opposition to the original 
charter. 

Our opponents are sensible of the strength of this posi- 
tion, and in various ways endeavor to escape the dilemma : 
First ; by denying the spiritual character of the covenant 
of circumcision : Second ; by denying the oneness, or 
identity of the Old and New Testament church ; and 
Third, by introducing certain New Testament passages of 
Scripture to prove that infants are incapable of complying 
with the conditions of baptism and church membership. 
Upon their Jirst and second positions, we deem it unneces- 
sary to say more ; but simply refer our reader to Part 
First. And their third position shall receive attention in 
due time, and in proper order. 

Children Included. 

God never made a covenant with his people, which did 
not extend to their children ; and in some form secure to 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 



115 



them its blessings and its privileges. God said to Noah, 
Gen. 9: 9, " And I, behold I establish my covenant with 
you, and with your seed after you." To Abraham God 
said, Gen. 17: 7, " And 1 will establish my covenant be- 
tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their gener- 
ations for an everlasting covenant." In Deut. 29 : 10 — 13, 
when the Israelites stood up and entered into covenant 
with God, it is expressly stated, that their " little ones" — 
children, were also included in the covenant and enjoyed 
its provisions and promises. The same idea is carried 
through New Testament transactions. Hence, when Zac- 
cheus is converted, the Lord Jesus Christ is careful to ob- 
serve, Luke 19 : 9, " This day is salvation come to this 
house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." When 
the multitude on the day of Pentecost, " were pricked in 
their heart, and said" unto Peter and the rest of the apos- 
tles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter urges 
them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, 
and in the very next verse adds, Acts 2 : 39, " For the 
promise is unto you and to your children" Again : when 
Peter explains the circumstances connected with the con- 
version of Cornelius, the same truth is brought to view, 
Acts 11 : 14, " Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and 
all thy house shall be saved." And when Paul answers 
the inquiry of the trembling jailer, it is in language that 
conveys the same sentiment. Acts 16 : 31, " Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house" 

These examples are sufficient to prove that it is not pe- 
culiar to the Old Testament to promise blessings to be- 
lievers and their offspring. The reader will also remem- 
ber that the language quoted from the New Testament, 
comes from Jews by birth and education — men, who 

11 



116 INFANT BAPTISM. 

had been initiated into the true visible church in in- 
fancy, and were familiar with the promise " I will establish 
my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, 
in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Can it be pos- 
sible then, that when these same Jews preach salvation to 
believers and their households, and declare that the " prom- 
ise is to them and to their children" that they have no al- 
lusion to God's covenant with his people and their children ? 
Or do they recognize the standing order of the visible 
church; and on the strength and promise of " God's ever- 
lasting covenant" assure believing parents, that their chil- 
dren are included, as were the seed of " faithful Abraham V 
For instance, how would Jewish hearers, and Jewish con- 
verts to Christianity understand Peter — their own country- 
man, when he declares in language peculiar to their own 
nation and religion, " For the promise is unto you and to 
your children?" Would they infer that the children of 
God's people must now be cast out of the church, and cut' 
off from the covenant which says " I will be a God unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee ?" Or would they neces- 
sarily infer, that the rights, privileges and relations of their 
children under the gospel dispensation, were substantially 
the same as under the original, unrepealed constitution of 
the church ; and that " the promise" brought to view by 
the apostle Peter was peculiarly Abrahamic in its charac- 
ter and design? To what "promise" does Peter refer, if 
not to the promise in the Abrahamic covenant — the cove- 
nant that provides for infant church membership ? 

Since writing the above, we have taken up Peter Ed- 
wards' " Candid Reasons;" and his remarks upon the text 
" For the promise is unto you and to your childen," are so 
much in point that we give them at length, without apolo- 



KEW testament argument. 117' 

gy. Our reader will remember that Mr. Edwards was for 
many years a distinguished baptist minister ; hence un- 
derstood " the crooks and turns" in the system. See Ed- 
wards, page 71 — 83, inclusive. 

Acts ii. 38,39. " Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be 
baptized everyone ofyou,kithe name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For 
the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar 
off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 

As this passage is only brought forward to show, that infants are 
spoken of in the New Testament, as church-members, agreeable to 
the ancient dispensation of God ; 1 shall confine myself to these 
three conclusions : 

I. That the phrase, *< to you and to your children," intends 
adults and infants. 

II. That this promise must comprehend adults and infants, 
wherever it comes, even as long as God shall continue his word to 
us. 

III. That infants are placed in the same relation to baptism, as 
they were of old to circumcision. 

These 1 shall now proceed to evince ; and in the first place I af- 
firm, 

1. That the phrase, To you and to your children, intends adults 
and infants. This may be proved by considering, 

1. The resemblance between this promise, and that in Gen. xvii. 
7. " To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee." The 
resemblance between these two lies in two things ; 1. Each stands 
connected with an ordinance, by which persons were to be admitted 
into church-fellowship ; the one by circumcision, the other by bap- 
tism. 

Both agree in phraseology ; the one is, " to thee, and to thy seed ;" 
the other is, " to you, and to your children." Now every one knows 
that the word seed means children ; and that children means seed ; 
and that they are precisely the same. From these two strongly re- 
sembling features, viz. their connexion with a similar ordinance, and 
the sameness of the phraseology, 1 infer, that the subjects expressed 
in each, are the very same. And as it is certain that parents and in 



118 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



fants were intended by the one ; it must be equally certain that botll 
are intended by the other. 

2. The sense, in which the speaker must have understood the 
sentence in question. The promise is, to you and to your children. 

In order to know this, we must consider who the speaker was, 
and from what source he received his religious knowledge. The 
Apostle, it is evident, was a Jew, and brought up in the Jewish 
church. He knew the practice of that church, with respect to those 
who were admitted to be its members. He knew, that he himself 
had been admitted in infancy, and that it was the ordinary practice 
of the church to admit infants to membership. And he likewise 
knew, that in this they acted on the authority of that place, where 
God promises to Abraham, "to be a God unto him*, and to his sced. 1? 
Now if the Apostle knew all this ; in what sense could he understand 
the term children, as distinguished from their parents? I have said, 
that tekna, children, and sperma, seed, mean the same thing. And 
as the Apostle well knew, that the term seed intended infants, 
though not mere infants only ; and that infants were circumcised,, 
and received into the church, as being the seed ; what else could he 
understand, by the term children, when mentioned with their par- 
ents ? Those who will have the Apostle to mean, by the term chil- 
dren, adult posterity only, have this infelicity attending them, that 
they understand the term differently from all other men ; and thi& 
absurdity, that they attribute to the Apostle a sense of the word,, 
which to him must have been the most unfamiliar and forced. And, 
therefore, that sense of the word for which they contend, is the most 
unlikely of all to be the true one, because it is utterly improbable 
that a person should use a word in that sense which to him, and to 
all the world beside, was altogether unfamiliar. 

3. In what sense his hearers must have understood hira s when he 
said, u The promise is to you, and to your children." 

The context informs us, that many of St, Peter's hearers, as he 
himself was, were- Jews. They had been accustomed for many 
hundred years to receive infants, by circumcision, into the church ; 
and this they did, as before observed, because God had promised to 
be a God to Abraham, and to his seed. They had understood this 
promise, to mean parents and their infant offspring ; and this idea 
was become familiar by the practice of many centuries. What then 
niust have been their views, when, one of their own community says 
to tjiemj «'The promise is to you, and to your children?" If the!*- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 119 

practice of receiving infants was founded on a promise exactly sim- 
ilar, as it certainly was ; how could they possibly understand him, 
but as meaning the same thing, since he himself used the same 
mode of speech ? This must have been the case, unless we admit 
this absurdity, that they understood him in a sense to which they 
had never been accustomed. 

How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to come with a lexicon in his 
hand, and a criticism in his head, to inform us that tekna, children, 
means posterity ! Certainly it does, and so means the youngest in- 
fants. The verb tikto, from which it comes, signifies, to bring forth, 
i. e. the offspring. And are not infants of that number ? But the 
Baptists will have it that tekna^ children, in this place, means only 
adult posterity. And, if so, the Jews to whom he spoke, unless 
they understood him in a way in which it was morally impossible 
they should, would infallibly have understood him wrong. Certain- 
ly all men, when acting freely, will understand words in that way 
which is most familiar to them ; and nothing could be more familiar 
to the Jews, than to understand such a speech, as Peter's, to mean 
adults and infants. So that if the Jews, the awakened Jews, had 
apprehended the Apostle to mean only adults, when he said, " To 
you and your children ;'' they must have had an understanding of 
such a peculiar construction, as to make that sense of a word, which 
to them was totally unnatural and forced, to become familiar and 
easy. 

We should more certainly come at the truth, if, instead of idly 
criticising, we could fancy ourselves Jews, and in the habit of cir- 
cumcising infants, and receiving them into the church. And then, 
could we imagine one of our own nation and religion, to address us 
in the very language of Peter in this text, " The promise is to you 
and your children;" let us ask ourselves, as in the sight of God, 
whether we could ever suppose him to mean adult posterity only ? 
Or if, instead of putting ourselves in the situation of Jews, we should 
suppose the Apostle to address the members of the establishment, 
in the same phraseology, as he did the Jews, can any person doubt, 
whether they would understand him to mean adults and infants?— 
It is certainly impossible. And why ? Because they have been for 
ages in the habit of receiving infants into the church. Just so it was 
with the Jews when the Apostle addressed them ; and therefore, 
they could no more have understood him, as meaning to exclude in,* 

XI* 



120 INFANT BAPTISM. 

fants, than the members of the establishment would by the use of 
the same phrase. 

IJ have been endeavoring to prove that both Peter, who spoke, 
and the Jews, who were his hearers, must have understood the 
promise in the text to mean adults and infants ; because such a 
meaning would be to them the most natural and obvious, both from 
their own habit and practice, and from its exact resemblance to that 
promise on which their practice was founded, and by which their 
habit was formed. But since Mr. Booth and all the Baptists will 
have it to mean no such thing, I shall only say, as Mr. B. does in 
his answer to Dr. Williams, page 274, " Then Dr. Samuel Johnson 
might well say, though a man accustomed to satisfy himself with 
the obvious and natural meaning of a sentence, does not easily shake 
off his habit, yet a true-bred lawyer never contents himself with this 
sense when there is another to be found. My opponent, says Mr. B. 
to Dr. W. seems to have imbibed the spirit of Dr. Johnson's true- 
bred lawyer ; for he cannot be at all content with the obvious and 
natural meaning, &c." Mutato nomine, &c. This is true of Mr. 
Booth.— — 1 am to prove in the next place, 

II. That this promise must comprehend adults and infants 
wherever it comes, let it come wherever it may. 

The Apostle, in applying this promise, distinguishes those to whom 
it is to apply into present and absent. The first class were his hear- 
ers; the second he describes two ways — all that are afar off, — as 
many as the Lord our God shall call. To each of these classes, 
viz. those who were present, and those who were absent, he applies 
the promise in the text. To those who were present the promise 
is, to you and to your children ;. — to those afar off, and the promise 
is to you and to your children ; — to as many as the Lord our God 
shall call, the promise is to you and to your children. Let the prom- 
ise come to what persons soever it may, it must come to them and 
to their children ; because the promise must be the same wherever 
God shall send it. I have already proved that the words [you and 
children] mean adults and infants ; and both being in the promise, 
it must therefore belong to each : to you adults and to your in- 
fants, who are present ; to you adults, who are afar ofT, and to your 
infants ; to as many adults as the Lord our God shall call, and their 
infants. That this is true may be proved by considering the essence 
or nature of the promise. 

There are two things which enter into the essence of a promise : 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 121 

It must contain some good — it must be made to some person or per- 
sons. That these two belong to the essence of a promise appears by 
this, that if either be taken away, there can be no promise — e. g. — 
1 will be a God to thee and to thy seed; the good in this promise is 
God himself — the persons were Abraham and his seed, if the good 
be taken away, it will then be no promise , 1 will — to thee and to thy 
seed. The case will be the same if the persons are taken away ; 
I will be a God — in either case it is no promise. So when a prom- 
ise is made to different persons, one person is as essential to the 
promise as the other — e. g. 1 will be a God unto thee and to thy 
seed ; the promise is as much to the seed as to Abraham, and as 
much to Abraham as to the seed ; because both are essential to the 
promise. 

Now the Apostle, expressing the essence or nature of the promise 
in the text, as it respects the objects, says, " The promise is to you 
and to your children." Both parts, therefore, belong to the prom- 
ise ; it is essential to the promise that it be — to you ; — it is likewise 
essential to it that it be to your children. And the case being so, 
we cannot take away either part without violating the essence of the 
promise. We have no more right to say, The promise is to you, 
but not to your children, than the promise is to your children, but 
not to you ; for as it was the design of God that the promise should 
be to both, it was his design that it should be to their children as 
truly as to themselves. And so the promise must be to Peter's 
hearers and their children — to all that are afar off, and to their chil- 
dren — to as many as the Lord our God shall call, and to their chil- 
dren; and the reason is, both enter into the essence of the promise. 
So when God said, " 1 will be a God unto thee and to thy seed," it 
would apply, in the same form, " to thee and to thy seed," to every 
man and every generation of men of the offspring of Abraham, as 
long as the promise was in force. 

Mr. Booth objects to this, in vol. ii p. 355, and says, " These 
words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] are, as plainly as 
possible, a limiting clause, and extend a restrictive force to the term, 
children, as much as to the pronoun, you, or to that descriptive 
language, all that are afar off." To this 1 reply, that the Apostle 
himself did not make use of that limit which Mr. B. says is so plain ; 
for the Apostle actually spoke to those who, in Mr. B.'s sense, were 
already awakened and called ; and then, as plainly as possible, dis- 
tinguishes between them and their children. Now if the Apostle 



122 INFANT BAPTISM; 

addressed those who were already called, and extended the prbrtl- 
ise beyond them, even to their children, then the promise was not 
limited to the Called. Bat this the Apostle actually did as plainly as 
words could express it ; for he spoke to those who were pricked in 
their heart, and said, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" To 
these he said, "The promise is unto you" — and, instead of confining 
it to them only, he extends it to their children also ; and so passes 
over that limit which Mr. B. is pleased to lay down. And as the 
Apostle extends the promise beyond the called in the first clause, we 
must follow his example, and extend it beyond the called in the last 
clause — thus the promise is to as many as the Lord our God shall 
call, and to their children : and then Mr. B.'s limiting clause will 
be nothing more than a very lame evasion. 

Notwithstanding this, there is some truth in Mr. B.'s idea respect- 
ing the limiting clause, though he himself, by misapplication, has 
done violence to that truth. That clause, " to as many as the Lord 
our God shall call," is really a limiting clause, but not in that way 
Mr. B. supposes. This, like every other promise, has two limits, 
and these two are fixed by two limiting clauses. One limit deter- 
mines how wide the promise shall extend ; the other how far it is to 
run — the one is a limit of latitude, the other of longitude. The limit 
of latitude extends to parents and children — that of longitude reaches 
down u to as many as the Lord our God shall call." And as there 
is a perfect harmony between these »two, there is no need to destroy 
the one in order to preserve the other ; for both limits being settled 
and fixed, that of latitude, which extends to parents and children, 
must continue firm, till, through successive ages, it comes down to 
that of longitude, which reaches to as many as the Lord our God 
shall call ; that is, as long as God shall continue to call, the promise 
shall pertain to parents and children. 

Mr. B. therefore, was very right in making this a limiting clause, 
for so it really is; but he was very wrong when, instead of preserv- 
ing both, he set one limit to destroy the other. And as it often falls 
out that those who do violence to the spirit of a text, are led to ut- 
ter some rash expression against the letter of it, just so it has fallen 
out in Mr. B.'s case. Fie has violated one limit in the text, and has 
so expressed himself as to exceed all limits of truth. In vol. ii. p. 
354, he has said, " There is nothing said about the promise respect- 
ing any besides those who were then awakened." Those, who 
were awakened, are distinguished by the pronoun " you ;" and it is 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 123 

Certain something is said about the promise respecting them. But, 
says Mr. B. " there is nothing said about the promise respecting 
any besides." Mr. B. should not have said this with the test before 
his eyes. He should first have erased that clause of it," and to your 
children," and not have let it stand to stare him in the face, and 
convict him of falsehood. As something was said about the prom- 
ise respecting those who were awakened, and their children both, 
he might as well have denied it respecting the awakened, as to de- 
ny it respecting their children : but it is often the fate of those 
who oppose truth to lose truth and modesty together. 

When any dispute happens on a place of Scripture, and it cannot 
be settled from the context, the best way is to pass to a similar place, 
and observe (if there be any plain indications) in what manner that 
was understood, and what practice took place upon it. That pas- 
sage, to which the text bears the strongest resemblance, is Genesis 
xvii. 7. "J will establish my convenant — to be a God unto thee 
and to thy seed." There is no place in Scripture so like the text as 
this ; they are both worded in the same way— 4 ' to thee and to thy 
seed"— to you and to your children: They are both connected 
with a religious ordinance. By seed, which is the same as children, 
was meant an infant of eight days old and upwards ; and because a 
promise is made to the seed, an infant becomes the subject of a re- 
ligious ordinance. Now, if the language of the text be similar, and 
if it be connected with a religious ordinance as that was. what better 
comment can be made upon it than what that passage suggests ! 
Why should not the ideas be alike, if the language and circumstances 
be so? Txhe reason why a comparing of Scripture with Scrip- 
ture assists the understanding, is this : When God uses the same 
kind of language in two places of Scripture, and the circumstances 
are alike, it is plain he means to be understood as intending similar 
things. This is so sure a rule of interpretation, that we are not 
afraid of venturing our everlasting interests upon it. And, by adopt- 
ing it in this instance, the result will be clearly this : That the 
Holy Ghost, by the phrase, " you and your children," meant adults 
and infants; that these are placed together in the same promise, 
and that the promise, thus made to adults and infants, is connected 
with baptism. And from hence it may be proved, 

111. That infants are placed in the same relation to baptism, as 
they were of old to circumcision. 
Let any one compare the two places together, viz. Gen. xvii. 7, 9 % 



124 INFANT BAPTISM. 

10, and this now before us, and he will see that parents and children 
are united, in each promise, in the same way — there the promise is, 
"to thee and to thy seed" — here it is, "to you and to your children ;" 
—that the promise, in each place, is connected with a religious or- 
dinance. In Genesis it is connected with circumcision — in this 
text with baptism ;~that, in both places, the ordinance is made to 
result from the promise — the one is set down as a reason for the 
other ; Gen. xvii . 9. " Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore ;■" 
that is, because God had given a promise. So here, " Repent^ and 
let every one of you, of your's, be baptized, for (gar, because) the 
promise is to you and to }^our children :" Infants, therefore, in this 
passage, are placed in the same relation to baptism as they were 
anciently to circumcision. This being so, 1 reason thus : 

When a positive institute is connected with a promise, all who are 
contained in the promise, have a right to the institute. 1 think any 
one may be compelled to grant this, as it is certainly an undeniable 
truth ; for if parents must, therefore, he circumcised because they 
are included in the promise, then, as infants are also included in the 
promise, they too must be circumcised. All this is evinced by the 
history of circumcision, and is indeed a self-evident case ; because 
if a promise give a right to an institute, the institute must belong to 
all who are interested in the promise. And, therefore, we may rea- 
son thus : If parents must be baptized because the promise belongs 
to them, then must their infants be baptized, because the promise is 
to them also. This mode of reasoning is the more certain, as it is 
confirmed, beyond all doubt,"by the divine procedure ; for if you ask, 
Who were to be circumcised ? the reply is, Those to whom the 
promise was made. If you inquire again, To whom was the prom- 
ise made ; we answer, to adults and infants. Again, if you ask, 
Who are to be baptized ? the answer is, Those to whom the promise 
is made. But to whom is it made? The Apostle says, " To you 
and to your children." Now what proof more direct can be made 
or desired for infant baptism ? 

From these premises the result is plainly this : That as infants 
stand, in this text, in the same relation to baptism as they did to 
circumcision, their right to the one must be the same as it was to 
the other. The case, in both instances, stands fairly thus : The 
promise connects itself with the ordinance ; that with circumcision — 
this with baptism. It also connects two parties together, infants 
and parents, and unites them both to that ordinance with which it- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 125 

self is connected. It is by virtue of the union of the promise with 
the ordinance that those who have an interest in the one have a 
right to the other ; and when two parties, parents and children, are 
interested in the same promise, and that promise gives a right to 
the ordinance, it gives the same right to both the parties who are 
interested in it. And hence, as parents and children are interested 
in the promise, the right of the children to the ordinance is the same 
as that of parents. 

Acts 2 : 38, 39, " Then Peter said unto them, Repent," 
&c. See also Rev. Isaac Clinton's Treatise, page 29 — 39. 

We have now shown, that by the authority and command 
of God, children were originally in covenant relation with 
the true visible church ; and that so far from any materi- 
al change, or repeal of the ancient constitution of the 
church, New Testament ministers assure their Jewish 
hearers, that they " are the children of the prophets, and of 
the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying un- 
to Abraham 'And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
earth be blessed/ " Acts 3 : 24. They assure them that 
" The promise is unto them, and to their children ; and to 
all that are afar off,*' i. e. Gentiles. To the Gentiles they 
preach, Gal. 3 : 29, " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," and " Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and 
thy house :" hence both Jew and Gentile meet, and mutu- 
ally enjoy the privileges and promises of God's everlasting 
covenant with his people and their children. 

We are now prepared to examine the command which 
heads our New Testament argument: "Go ye, therefore, 
and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" 

Let the reader bear in mind, that " as concerning the 
flesh" Christ was a descendant of Abraham — a Jew, 



126 INFANT BAPTISM. 

circumcised on the eigth day, and educated in the obser- 
vance of the rites, ceremonies and ordinances of the Jew- 
ish church The same may be said of all the Apostles, 
they were Jews by birth and education : Hence, both the 
law-giver, and they who received the " commission" were 
familiar with infant church membership, as a divine in- 
stitution. The reader will also remember, that previous 
to the command " Go ye therefore and teach all nations," 
&c. few Gentiles had been proselyted to the true relig- 
ion. That the Saviour confined his labor to the Jewish 
nation, needs no proof: and it is equally certain that dur- 
ing his mission on earth, his disciples labored with their 
own countrymen. " Go not into the way of the Gen- 
tiles but go rather to the lost sheep of the house 

of Israel ;" was the express instruction of Jesus Christ. 
Matt. 10 : 5, 6. But after his resurrection from the dead, 
when, " All power was given unto him in heaven and in 
earth," the way being now prepared for the enlargement 
of the church, by accessions from the Gentile world, the 
Lord Jesus Christ now gives the command, " Go ye there- 
fore and teach all nations." 

The careful reader will observe that in this commission 
the words %t teach" and " teaching" occur in the same con- 
nection, and are evidently employed to express the main 
duty involved in the commission. Baptism seems to be 
rather incidental, or consequent to what is inculcated by 
the word " teach" as used in the first instance ; and there- 
fore less important. Hence, the apostle Paul could de- 
clare, 1 Cor. 1 : 17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, 
but to preach the gospel," i e. preaching was the main 
duty. But, what are we to understand by the language, 
"Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them . . . 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 127 

commanded you V Did the Saviour intend to repeat 
precisely the same sentiment over and over, saying " go 
teach all nations . . . teaching them," &x. ; or did he 
mean to define the order to be observed in the execution 
of the command ? That the latter was the real design of 
Christ, we shall now undertake to prove. 

The Greek word for " teach" used in the first instance, 
is mathetciisate, and, correctly translated would read — 
" Go ye therefore and make disciples, or proselytes of all 
nations, baptizing them," &,c. But the Greek word for 
" teaching," used immediately after, is didaskontes, and 
properly signifies to teach, or to give instruction. Hence, 
the commission presents us three distinct points, viz. 
1. Go and make disciples, or proselytes. 2. Baptize them. 
3. Teach, or instruct them. That the Greek word for 
" teach," used in the first instance, more properly signifies 
" to disciple," we presume no intelligent Baptist will deny; 
so that any argument based upon this rendering of mat h- 
eteusate, " Go disciple," will be sound, so far as criticism 
is concerned. Indeed, so far from objecting to this ren- 
dering, our opponents claim, that to be discipled in the 
sense of the text under consideration, is equivalent to em- 
bracing the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and consequently 
is a prerequisite for baptism : hence, they affirm that 
infants are improper subjects of baptism, because they are 
incapable of being made disciples. 

But let our reader remember, that the apostles were 
sent to disciple and baptize the nations of the earth ; 
that they were all Jews by birth and education ; had con- 
sequently been brought up in the belief and practice of 
infant church membership ; were accustomed to see Gen- 
tiles discipled to their religion, and enter their church ; 
and knew that the children of such proselytes were al- 

12 



128 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ways received with their parents into the same church, 
by the same rite of initiation ; and then what must we 
conclude in regard to the practice of the apostles? Can 
it be possible, that they understood from the command, 
" Go make disciples, or proselytes, baptize and teach/' that 
the children of such proselytes must now be excluded 
from covenant relation with the church ! Suppose the 
commission read " Go ye therefore and make disciples of 
all nations circumcising them," would there have been 
any doubts in the minds of our opponents relative to in- 
fant circumcision 1 How then can the relation of chil- 
dren be changed by baptism substituting circumcision, 
when both refer to a work of grace in the heart, and both 
were rites of initiation into the true visible church of 
God. 

But the reader will perceive, that our opponents rely 
upon the word "disciple" as expressing moral character — 
an intelligent follower of Jesus Christ — a sincere believer 
— one, not only capable of understanding, but also cor- 
dially embracing the gospel. Because, if the word " dis- 
ciple" does not necessarily describe a true follower of 
Jesus Christ, then the idea of actual faith as an indis- 
pensable condition of baptism, is exploded, since the apos- 
tles were sent, simply to make disciples and baptize and 
teach them. That the word " disciple," in the New Tes- 
tament ordinarily may denote a sincere follower of Christ, 
we will not deny. But that it always necessarily denotes 
christian character, we do deny. The reader has only to 
consult Matt. 10: ] — also 20 : 17, and he will find that 
even Judas was a disciple. In John 6 ; 66, we read 
" From that time many of his disciples went back and 
walked no more with him." Hence it is obvious either, 
that many fell from grace ; or many disciples were not 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 129 

christians. If the reader will compare Matt. 8 : 19 — 22 
with Luke 9 : 57 — 60, he will find that some were even 
called disciples, who simply expressed an intention of fol- 
lowing Christ — yes ; even before they began to carry their 
professed intention into practice. Will any one pretend 
that the multitude discipled and baptized by John ; and 
the still greater number made disciples and baptized by 
Christ and the apostles, were all renewed by the Spirit of 
God, previous to their baptism : or that these divine 
teachers even supposed them, at the time, truly regenera- 
ted, but were deceived in relation to their real moral 
character. Look at facts — scripture facts. From Matt. 
3 : 5, 6, it appears, that Jerusalem and all Judea, and all 
the region round about Jordan," were baptized by John : 
and in John 4:1,2, we read that " Jesus (and his disci- 
ples) made and baptized more disciples than John." Now 
if our opponents assumed that John the Baptist, and Jesus 
Christ and his apostles intended to baptize none but such 
as gave evidence of piety, or professed faith in the Mes- 
siah, then one of two things must necessarily follow : — 
Either, " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan," baptized by John ; and the multitude 
made disciples and baptized by Christ and his apostles, 
were savingly converted to God : or John, and Jesus, 
and the apostles were awfully imposed upon and deceived 
by their professed converts ! ! But, were the Jews so 
universally converted, even before the death of the Mes- 
siah? Did " Jerusalem and all Judea" and the vast num- 
bers discipled and baptized by Christ and his apostles — all 
receive " believer's baptism ?" Or were these divine teach- 
ers so deceived 1 Believe it, who can — we dare not. 

But if our opponents dare not assume and abide by 
either of the above positions ; then they are necessarily 



130 INFANT BAPTISM. 

driven to our own conclusions : viz. neither John the 
Baptist, nor Jesus Christ, or the apostles, considered 
actual faith, or christian character, absolutely necessary to 
constitute a disciple : therefore, when the Lord Jesus 
Christ said "Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
them," &c. he spake in accordance with the covenant and 
constitution of the church of God, which bad always re- 
cognized the right and duty of making proselytes from 
the Gentile world — both of adults and their infant seed 
with them. True ; the field is now enlarged, and the rite 
of initiation is changed ; but Jesus utters nothing to sup- 
port the idea that faith must now precede Baptism : or 
that infant church membership is abolished. Hence the 
doctrine that " Believers are the only proper subjects of 
baptism" has no foundation or countenance in the Great 
Commission, to disciple and baptize all nations. 

But let us now examine whether God holds infants as 
incapable of covenant relation — the children of his peo- 
ple as enjoying no place or name in the visible church* 
other than is enjoyed by the offspring of the unbelieving 
world. Does the bible ever speak of infants as prose- 
lytes, or disciples in any sense ? Does it ever represent 
them in that character and relation ? 

1. Children entered into covenant with God : Deut. 
29 : 10 — 13, " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord 
your God : your captains of your tribes, your elders and 
your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, 
your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the 
hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water. That 
thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy 
God," &,c. Here the entire host of Israel, " little ones'* 
and all, stood up and entered into covenant with God. 

S. Infants had a station assigned them in the sanctuary 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 131 

6f God : Num. 3 : 28. " In the number of all the males 
from a month old and upwards, were eight thousand and 
six hundred keeping the charge of the sanctuary," 9 Little 
Samuel was carried to the house of the Lord, as soon 
as weaned. See 1 Sam. 1 :24. 

3. The children of God's people were considered " a holy 
seed" Ezra, 9 : 2, because consecrated to God in cove- 
nant relation. Hence, Isaiah, speaking of God's covenant 
people, declares, Chap. 65 : 23, " They are the seed of the 
blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." 
The fact that children were a " holy seed," imposed pecu- 
liar obligations upon parents to educate and train them up 
for God and his church. Such children were considered 
as the " seed of the church" — the germs, or incipient 
moral elements of her perpetuity and spiritual increase. 

4. Among the Jews, the children of Gentile proselytes 
were also considered proselytes, and were initiated into 
covenant relation with the church by the administration of 
the same religious rite, viz. circumcision. This is so ob- 
vious, that we need not offer proof. If the reader wishes 
to examine this subject, we refer him to Wall's His. of Inf. 
Bap. Vol. I. p. 4 — 26 inclusive. 

We now call attention to Jthe New Testament with 
special reference to the same general facts. The candid 
reader will see that in both New and Old, the relations de- 
scribed and the names applied, all indicate the rights and 
privileges enjoyed by the children of God's people, pecu- 
liar to the original constitution of the church ; hence, 
New Testament writers must have understood, that chil- 
dren were still to be received with their parents into cove- 
nant relation with the church. 

1. The children of believing parents, under the gospel 
12* 



132 INFANT BAPTISM. 

dispensation, belong to the visible church, or kingdom of 
God. Luke 18 : 16, " But Jesus called them unto him 
and said, suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not : for of such is the Kingdom of God;" i. e." The 
kingdom of God" belongs to such — they have rights and 
privileges in that kingdom. That the " kingdom of God" 
in this place, and in parallel passages, denotes the visible 
church, we shall undertake to prove in due time. 

2. The children of God's people are reputed " holy," 
or proper subjects to be consecrated to God. 1 Cor. 7 : 
14, " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, 
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else 
were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." 
Things "unclean" could not be offered to God, under the 
law; while things reputed clean or holy were proper offer- 
ings. The Greek word rendered " holy" in this text, is 
elsewhere translated " saint" or " saints" For example, 
see 1 Cor. 1 : 2, " To them that are sanctified (set apart) 
in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" Eph. 1 : 1, " To the 
saints which are at Ephesus." Col. 1 : 2, " To the saints 
and faithful brethren in Christ." Hence, while the chil- 
dren of God's people are reputed a '* holy seed" in the old 
testament, they are considered " holy children" in the new. 

3. The children of God's people are called " disciples." 
That such children as are capable of exercising faith, may 
be denominated " disciples," our opponents will not deny. 
But self-preservation demands, that the admission should 
extend no further ; since, if children incapable of faith 
may be disciples, they may also receive baptism. Matt. 
10 : 42, "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of 
these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a 
disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his 
reward." " Little ones" then, were capable of being dis- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 133 

ciples. That the Saviour speaks of little children is cer- 
tain from Mark 9 : 36, 37, where it is said " he took him 
(one of them) in his arms." 

In Acts 15 we find a dissension relative to circumcision. 
The Jews insisted that the brethren must be circumcised 
and keep the law of Moses. Peter, in council, replies as 
follows : " Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke 
upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers 
nor we were able to bear." That this yoke was " circum- 
cision and the law of Moses," none will deny. But was 
not this yoke put upon the necks of infants, as well as ad- 
ults; consequently, must not infants have been among the 
disciples ; as they were always among proselytes under the 
law? Hence, if Peter by the word " disciples" refers to 
the proper subjects of circumcision under the law, then 
infants are disciples ; because they w T ere proper subjects of 
circumcision. We see not how our opponents can avoid 
this conclusion, unless they deny, that the circumcision of 
proper subjects under the law was the subject of contro- 
versy ; or maintain that Peter's answer had no relevancy 
to the question under consideration. We leave them to 
decide which. 

4. Whoever has attended to this controversy, is aware 
that the great objection to infant baptism is based upon 
the assumption that infants are incapable of moral exer- 
cises ; therefore cannot comply with the conditions upon 
which baptism is administered. This objection either 
overlooks, or discards the fact, that in certain relations, 
God speaks of children, and treats them as accountable 
moral beings, possessing the same character, and under the 
same obligations as adults. Hence, the children of God's 
people if uncircumcised, were considered and treated as 
covenant breakers ; Gen. 1 7 : 14. They entered into cov- 



134 INFANT BAPTISM. 

enant with God : Deul. 29 : 11. They were considered a 
" holy seed ;" Ez. 9 : 2. They are called the children of 
God ; Ezk. 16:21. Holy children ; 1 Cor. 7 : 11 Jere- 
miah was sanctified and ordained a prophet from his birth, 
Chap. 1 : 5. John was filled with the Holy Ghost from 
his birth, Luke 1 : 15. Children belong to the kingdom 
of God, or are among such as compose the kingdom of 
God, Luke 18 : 16. The promises of God's covenant are 
made to children, Acts 2 : 39. Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings God has perfected praise; Matt. 21 : 16. 
Ps.8: 2. 

We now ask the candid reader, what more can be said 
of adults ? Is such language ever employed to describe the 
character and relation of heathen children ; or children 
not in covenant relation with God's church? Did the 
apostles understand, that the commission to " disciple and 
baptize the nations" excluded the seed of believers? To 
believe it is to believe against evidence. 

Two considerations ought to convince the candid and 
unprejudiced, that the children of believers were among 
the subjects of baptism, and that the apostles so understood 
the commission. 

I. Infant baptism was common among the Jews, both 
before and after Christ came ; and the apostles must have 
been familiar with the fact. 

II. After Christ shed his blood for the remission of sin, 
baptism was given in the place of circumcision. Of course, 
these positions are controverted ; because to admit them 
would be fatal to the system of our opponents. As we do 
not ask our reader to believe without evidence, or ground 
faith upon the silence of authors, we propose such author- 
ity and evidence, as we deem sufficient for our conclusions- 

I. Infant baptism was common among the Jews, both 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 135 

before and after Christ came, and the apostles must have 
been familiar with the fact. 

The dispensation of John did not introduce baptism as 
a new rite in the visible church ; but simply gave it great- 
er prominence. In fact, baptisms, or symbolic washings and 
purifications by ceremonial ablutions were as common be- 
fore Christ came, as they have ever been since. Before John's 
day, bloody rites were the more important as significant 
symbols, showing forth the remission of sin by the shedding 
of blood. But John came to introduce the Messiah — " The 
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ■" and 
baptism is now the chosen rite to represent the removal of 
sin by moral cleansing. Hence, the Baptism of John ex- 
cited no surprise among the Jews, who were ever watchful 
and jealous of innovations ; they simply inquire " Why bap- 
tizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ]" John 1 : 25, 
God's prophet had foretold, that when Messiah came, he 
would " sprinkle many nations ;" Is. 52 : 15. The Jews 
consequently supposed the baptism of John must belong 
to the dispensation of the Messiah, — that it was from heav- 
en. The Saviour's reply to Nicodemus shows that bap- 
tism was common among the Jews before the christain 
dispensation. " Art thou a master of Israel and knowest 
not these things ?" viz. "except a man be born oiioater and 
of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
But how should a " master of Israel" know any more about 
being born of water, or baptism, than any body else, if 
baptism was wholly new — unpractised before? Paul wri- 
ting to the Corinthians, says, " Moreover, brethren, I would 
not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers 
were under the cloud and all passed through the sea ; and 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 
1 Cor. 10 : 1 5 2. Baptism, therefore was as ancieiH a§ 



136 



INFANT BAPTISM, 



the days of Moses, among the Jews. They baptized when 
they came from the market : and they had " divers bap- 
tisms/' not only of themselves but of " cups and pots and 
brazen vessels and tables" or beds, Mark 7 : 3, 4; Heb. 9 : 
10. So far then as baptism is concerned, it was in univer- 
sal practice among the Jews long before John came bap- 
tizing in the wilderness, and preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins. 

But our proposition affirms that " infant baptism, was 
common among the Jews both before and after Christ 
came;" and to this point we now invite attention. The 
Jews considered the Gentiles as unclean ; hence, when 
proselyted to their religion they were first circumcised to 
bring them under covenant obligation to worship and serve 
the true God; and then baptized or washed to denote 
moral cleansing. Females were simply baptized. Of the 
existence of this practice there seems to be a vast amount 
of evidence. 

Dr. Wood says " The Rabbins unanimously assert that 
the baptism of proselytes had been practiced by the 
Jews in all ages, from Moses down to the time when they 
wrote." Wood on Bap. p. 48. 

Dr. Pond says " All the Bobbins, ancient and modern, 
bear testimony to the custom of baptizing proselytes." 
Pond Bap. p. 89. 

Dr. Lightfoot says " The baptizing of infants was a thing 
as well known in the church of the Jews as ever it has been 
in the Christian church." Wall His. Vol. 1, p. 21. 

Dr. Prideaux says, that in our Saviour's time the Jews 
were very active in making proselytes, and, that " when 
any were thus proselyted to the Jewish religion they were 
initiated to it by baptism, sacrifice and circumcision,"— * 
Prideaux Connections, Vol. 2 } p. 203. 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 137 

The learned Dr. Witsius says " When a Gentile was re- 
ceived into the Israelitish Covenant, and as the Jews speak, 
became a proselyte of righteousness, three ceremonies of 
initiation were used, without which even the Israelites 
themselves, according to their received notion, could not 
enter into that covenant : to wit, circumcision, baptism and 
sacrifice." And the Jewish masters have fixed it as a law, 
that this baptism is so necessary, that without it, as much 
as without circumcision, there can be no proselytism ; but 
this alone w 7 ith sacrifice is all the initiation that is necessa- 
ry in the case of a female proselyte." (Economy of the, 
Covenants, Vol. 3, p. 384. 

According to the editor of Calmet's Dictionary, Mr. 
Abrarn Booth, one of the fathers of the Baptist Church in 
England, admits that " The children of proselytes were 
baptized with their parents among the Jews." Apostoli© 
Bap. p. 58. 

Talmuds, &c. 

To quote all that the Jewish Doctors affirm respecting 
" Proselyte Baptism," would require much patience and 
time ; we shall, therefore, present a few specimens from 
the mass of authority, and leave the reader to consult 
Wall's Introduction for a more complete exhibition of this 
subject. 

The Babylonian Talmud u the text of which," says Dr. 
Pond, " was composed as early as the close of the second 
century," or within 100 years of the apostles, contains the 
following. " When a proselyte is received, he must be 
circumcised, and when he is cured, they baptize him in 
the presence of two wise men. Or if it be a woman, the 
women lead her to the waters." 

" The proselytes enter not into covenant but by circura- 



138 INFANT BAPTISM. 

cision, baptism, and sprinkling of blood. ,? Again " He is 
no proselyte unless he be circumcised and baptized. If he 
be not baptized he remains a Gentile" 

" Your fathers did not enter into covenant but by cir- 
cumcision, and baptism and sprinkling of blood ; so nei- 
ther do proselytes enter into covenant but by circumcision 
and baptism and sprinkling of blood." 

" They baptize an infant proselyte according to the judg- 
ment of the Sanhedrim ;" and " if it has been bereaved of 
its father, three men must be present at the baptism who 
may be as a father to it." 

In the Jerusalem Talmud it is said, " Behold one finds 
an infant cast out, and baptizes him in the name of a ser- 
vant ; do thou also circumcise him in the name of a ser- 
vant. But if he baptize him in the name of a freeman, do 
thou also circumcise him in the name of a freeman." 

Maimonides (a Jewish Rabbi) gives us the following 
account of the forms of initiation among the Jews : " In all 
ages when a Gentile is willing to enter into the covenant 
with Israel, and place himself under the wing of the Divine 
Majesty, and take upon himself the yoke of the law, he must 
be circumcised and baptized, and bring a sacrifice ; or if it 
be a woman, be baptized and bring a sacrifice ; as it is writ- 
ten ' As ye are, so shall the stranger be/ Numb. 15 : 15. 
How are ye ? By circumcision and baptism and bringing a 
sacrifice. So likewise the stranger through all your gen- 
erations, by circumcision and baptism and bringing a sac- 
rifice." Again : " An Israelite that takes a little heathen 
child, or that finds an heathen infant, and baptizes him 
for a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte." 

Arrian, a heathen philosopher at Rome A. D. 140, 
(about 50 years after the apostles) reproaches those who 
turned proselytes to the Jews, calling them the baptized 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 139 

ones." See Pond on Bap. p. 89—91. Wall's Intro. Inf. 
Bap. 

But it seems unnecessary to multiply quotations upon 
this subject; since the fact of " Proselyte Baptism" among 
the Jews, both before and after Christ came, has been so 
universally admitted by learned men of every age. In- 
deed, opposition seems to have grown out of necessity, 
rather than diversity of opinion. Proselyte Baptism 
among the Jews gave so much confirmation to the doctrine 
of infant baptism among christians ; that some modern 
baptist writers have felt the necessity of assailing this an- 
cient custom of the church. Hence, the great objection 
is stated, " Certain authors are silent as to any such prac- 
tice among the Jews!" It would seem, that in the estima- 
tion of such objectors, witnesses who testify to nothing 
are witnesses against proselyte baptism 1 ! Perhaps Dr. 
Watson's mild rebuke is merited, not only by Dr. Gill, but 
also by this entire class of objectors. Speaking of the 
Doctor, he observes. 

•' Dr. Gill, indeed, in his Dissertation on Jewish Proselyte Bap- 
iism, has ventured the m that 'there is no mention made of 

any rite or custom ofadrni o J swish proselytes by baptism, in any 
writings or records be v , me of John the Baptist, Christ and 

his apostles ; nor in any age after them for the first three or four 
hundred years; or, however, before the writing of the Talmuds? 
But the learned doctor has not condescended to understand the evi- 
dence of this fact, it does not rest on the testimony of Jewish rec- 
ords solely ; it was in circulation among the heathen, as we learn 
from the clear and demonstrative testimony of Epictetus, who has 
these words : (he is blaming those who assume the profession of 
philosophy without acting up to it :) 'Why do you call yourself a 
Stoic ? Why do you deceive the multitude ? Why do you pretend 
to be a Greek when you are a Jeio, a Syrian, an Egyptian? And 
wiien we see any one wavering, we are wont to say, This is not a 

13 



140 INFANT BAPTISM. 

Jeio, but acts one. But when he assumes the sentiments of one 
who hath been baptized and circumcised, then h© both really is, and 
is called a Jew. Thus we, falsifying oar profession, are Jews in 
name, but in reality something else.'** 

" This practice then of the Jews— proselyte baptism— was so no- 
torious to the he'athen in Italy and in Greece, that it furnished this 
philosopher with an object of comparison. Now Epictetus lived to 
be very old : he is placed by Dr. Lardner, A. D. 109, by Le Clerc, 
A. D. 104. He could not be less than sixty years of age when he 
wrote this ; and he might obtain his information thirty or forty years 
earlier, which brings it up to the time of the apostles. Those who 
could think that the Jews could institute proselyte baptism at the 
very moment when the Christians were practising baptism as an 
initiatory rite, are not to be envied for the correctness of their judg- 
ment. The rite certainly dates much earlier, probably many ages. 
I see no reason for disputing the assertion of Mairaonides, notwith- 
standing Dr. Gill's rash and fallacious language on the subject." — 
Watson on Bap. p. 28. 

" In regard to this subject,'' says Dr. Wood, " let the following 
things he well considered. 1. The Rabbins unanimously assert that 
the baptism of Proselytes had been practiced by the Jews in all ages, 
from Moses down to the time when they wrote. Now these writers 
must have been sensible that their contemporaries, both Jews and 
Christians, knew whether such practice had been prevalent or not. 
And had it been known that no such practice had existed, would 
not some Jews have been found, bold enough to contradict such 
groundless assertion of the Rabbins? At least, would there not 
have been some Christian, fired with the love of truth, and jealous 
for the honor of a sacred rite first instituted by Christ, who would 
have exposed to shame those who falsely asserted that a similar rite 
had existed for more than a thousand jears ? But neither of these 
things was done. 2. Had not the Jews been accustomed to baptize 
proselytes previously to the christian era, it is exceedingly improba- 
ble that they would have adopted the practice afterwards . For their 
contempt and hatred of christianty exceeded all bounds, and must 
have kept them at the greatest possible distance from copying a rite 
peculiar to christians. 3. It seems to have been perfectly consistent 
and proper for the Jews to baptize proselytes, for their divine ritual 
enjoined various purifications by washing, or baptism. And as they 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 141 

considered all Gentiles to be unclean, how could they do otherwise 
than understand the divine law to require, that when any of them 
were proselyted to the Jewish religion, they should receive the 
same sign of purification as was in so many cases applied to them- 
selves." Wood Bap. p. 28. 

" When John commenced baptizing in the wilderness of Judea," 
says Dr. Pond, " he introduced no new rite into the religion of the 
Jews, nor was he ever complained of as an innovator. And when 
our Saviour directed his disciples to go and baptize the nations, he 
instituted no new rite, but merely adopted and sanctioned a previous- 
ly existing Jewish institution. The work of proselyting men to the 
true religion had before been carried on within narrow limits. It 
was now to be carried on extensively, and baptism (as before) was 
to be administered to all proselytes. * Go ye and proselyte the na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father., and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost !' clearly, the disciples must have understood 
their Master to intend here, that kind of baptism to which both 
they and he had been accustomed, viz. the baptism of children with 
their parents . Under these circumstances instead of needing an ex- 
. press command to authorize the baptism of children, they must 
have needed a prohibition to prevent their doing it." Pond on Bap. 
p. 93 ; Appendix G. 

Here then we rest our argument for " Proselyte Bap- 
tism," which included parents and their children, having 
exhibited a mere sketch of argument and authority, where- 
as we might have presented a volume. When our oppo- 
nents offer one substantial objection to the practice, be- 
yond the " silence of certain authors/' we promise to re- 
view and strengthen our position. 

II. We now advance to our second position, viz. " Af- 
ter Christ shed his blood for the remission of sin, baptism 
was given in the place of circumcision." Here our oppo- 
nents rally their strongest force. To yield this point, 
would be to admit the spiritual character of the covenant 
of circumcision ; and the oneness, or identity of the Old 
and New Testament church. In short, it would be yield- 



142 INFANT BAPTISM. 

jng the divine right of infant baptism. So far as the ar- 
gument for the divine right of infant baptism is concern- 
ed, we might concede that [circumcision and baptism 
sustain no relation to each other, whatever, as religious 
rites. We would simply claim that the Jews were com- 
manded to admit their children, with themselves, into cov- 
enant relation with the church, and circumcision was the 
appointed rite of initiation. We would then present the 
fact that the constitutional church relation of children has 
never been repealed, or materially changed ; consequently 
they are still to be received into covenant relation with the 
church, by the same rite that initiates adults into covenant 
relation; and that rite, our opponents claim, is baptism. 
But the cause of truth demands that circumcision and bap- 
tism should be recognized in the order and relation that 
God has ordained. Hence we undertake to prove that 
" Baptism was given in the place of circumcision." 

God gave the Old Testament, or Jewish church., two re- 
ligious ordinances before the ceremonial law was instituted : 
These were circumcision and the passover ; the institution 
of the former is recorded Gen. 17, and the latter Ex. 12. 
Circumcision, in its application, pointed first to the Mes- 
siah, as the seed of Abraham ; and secondly, as a bloody rite, 
it referred to the remission of sins through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and consequently taught the necessity of a moral 
change, or change of heart. See Part First, p. 46, 47. The 
passover was instituted the night Israel escaped from Egyp- 
tian bondage. A lamb was slain — the flesh was eaten and 
the blood sprinkled upon the door posts, &,c. That the 
passover, or Paschal lamb pointed to Christ, we presume 
none will deny. Paul expressly teaches that " Christ our 
passover is sacrificed for us/ 5 1 Cor. 5 : 7. That the 
Lord's supper took the place of the passover^ we believe 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT, 143 

is very generally admitted. But what rite has taken the 
place of circumcision, is now the question. Once circum- 
cision was the sign and seal of God's covenant, and the 
rite of initiation into the true visible church of God. 
Is there no substitute, or equivalent under the gospel dis- 
pensation. 

Now it can be shown, that circumcision and baptism 
answer as exactly to each other, as the passover and Lord's 
supper ; and that the apostles and their immediate follow- 
ers and successors believed and taught that baptism was 
given in the place of circumcision. 

1. Circumcision was a religious rite ordained of God, 
and practiced by the true visible Church of God. That 
the same is true of baptism is universally conceded. 

2. Circumcision was an initiatory rite, i. e. by circum- 
cision, individuals were received into covenant relation 
with God and his church ; and without the rite of circum- 
cision none were ever admitted to such privileges. As 
evidence of this fact, uncircumcised persons were cut off 
from the people of God — excluded from the sanctuary of 
God, and from the ordinances of the church. Part First, 
p. 58. 

Baptism is an initiatory rite; i e. by baptism individu- 
als enter into covenant relation with the visible church. 
This our opponents will not deny, since they will invite 
none but regularly immersed church members to the ^com- 
munion of the Lord's supper. V* 

3. Circumcision was also designed to distinguish the 
professed people of God from the world, by a profession 
of their faith before the world. Jews, or Gentile prose- 
lytes, by receiving circumcision, avowed themselves the 
worshipers of the living and true God. Baptism also 
distinguishes the professed people of God from the world, 

13* 



144 INFANT BAPTISM. 

Should it be objected that some have practiced circurnci- 
sion who did not even profess the true religion ; we an- 
swer, the same is true of baptism. The reader will bear in 
mind, that we are considering the relations of circumci- 
sion and baptism, and not the 'perversions of these rites. 

4. Circumcision was a "sign and seal" Rom. 4: 1L 
" And Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith w r hich he had yet being 
uncircumcised." As a sign, circumcision was significant 
of a moral change. It pointed to the work of the Holy Spirit 
in renewing and cleansing the corrupt heart. This is a 
necessary inference from the fact, that circumcision point- 
ed to Christ, as the seed of Abraham and as a sacrifice for 
sin. But that circumcision pointed to a work of grace in 
the heart, is made absolutely certain by the declarations of 
both old and new 7 testaments. Deut. 30: 6. "And the Lord 
thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed, 
to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, -arid with all thy 
soul, that thou mayest live. See ch. 10 : 16 ; Lev. 26 : 41. 

Perfectly in accordance with this exposition of circum- 
cision in the old Testament, is the testimony of Paul in 
the New. Rom. 2 : 28, 29. " For he is not a Jew which is 
one (only) outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which 
is (only) outwardly in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is 
one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men ) 
but of God." 

Baptism is also a sign of moral cleansing ; or of the 
work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Almost the first 
announcement in the ministry of John contains undeniable 
evidence of this fact. Matt. 3 : 1 1. " I indeed baptize you 
with water unto repentance . . . but he shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost and with fire." John's baptism therefore, 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 145 

referred tothe influences of the Holy Spirit. When Paul 
is converted, Ananias says to him, " Arise and be baptized 
and wash away thy sins." i. e. " Receive that ceremonial 
washing, or baptism, which is significant of moral cleans- 
ing." Hence, baptism is called the " washing of regen- 
eration," because it points to that moral change, which is 
expressed by the word " regeneration." Water is the 
element in both Old and New Testament employed to de- 
note purification, or cleansing; and when ceremonially 
used, never signifies any thing else. 

5. Circumcision is called a seal. " And Abraham re- 
ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the.righteousness 
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Now, 
what does the apostle mean to teach by this language, and 
in this connection ? As we conceive, simply this : 
While in iincirciuncision Abraham fully believed and em- 
braced, the promise of God, respecting the Messiah, and a 
numerous spiritual seed; and on the ground of that faith 
was justified : or in other words, " his faith was counted un- 
to him for righteousness." God then added to the prom- 
ise, circumcision, as a sign or " token" of his covenant. 
Circumcision, as a sign, in its application, promised that 
" as concerning the flesh," Christ should be of the seed of 
Abraham ; and as a bloody rite, it showed forth the remis- 
sion of sins, and consequently, a work of grace in the 
heart. This bloody sign, therefore, was also a seal, or 
confirmation of all that God had promised him. 

Now we affirm that baptism is not only a sign, but also 
a. seal, in the same sense that circumcision was; it is a seal. 
or confirmation of gospel promises, and gospel blessings. 
In the institution of baptism, God seems to say to the 
church, " This ceremonial washing is not only a sign of 
moral cleansing, but also a seal, or confirmation of my 



146 INFANT BAPTISM. 

covenant with you. I now ordain the use of water to sig- 
nify that cleansing, which was promised in the shedding 
of blood." Baptism and circumcision therefore, were or- 
dained seals of the same covenant, under different dispen- 
sations ; but agreeing in substance. The apostle declares ; 
1 John, 5 : 8, "And there are three that bear witness in 
earth, the spirit, and the water and the blood; and these 
three agree in one." Hence blood and water agree in 
their testimony and significancy ; both referring to the 
way, and fact of moral cleansing, and thus confirming, or 
sealing the promises and truth of God. 

Various and intricate have been the objections urged 
against this simple and consistent view of baptism, as the 
substitute of circumcision. Some " deny that circumcision 
was ever a seal of any covenant/' Others affirm that it 
was a "sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinc- 
tion ;" or " that the rite was instituted to distinguish the 
Jews from other nations." Part First, 24,25. Some have 
ascribed to this rite a mixed character — partly religious, and 
in part worldly in its design. Many of these contradictory 
and absurd positions have been so often exploded, that ref- 
utation has almost become unpardonable tautology. Still, 
we beg leave to call attenton to one or two points in the 
discussion, somewhat important. Our opponents deny that 
baptism was given in the place of circumcision ; or that 
baptism is a seal, in any sense whatever; because circum- 
cision left a visible mark, or sign ; while baptism leaves 
none. See Campbell and Mc Calla's Debate p. 204, 5. 
Edition by McCalla, p. 217, 8. Some leading baptist wri- 
ters admit that circumcision had not only a spritual design, 
but also related to some of the same spiritual blessings; 
and still deny that baptism is a seal, or was given in the 
place of circumcision. Mr. Carson says "circumcision and 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 147 

baptism correspond in meaning, they both relate to the re- 
newal of the heart. 5 ' Carson and Cox, p. 367. Dr. Gill, 
on Gen. 17: 13, says " circumcision was a sign of Christ, 
as all the ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding 
of his blood to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and 
also of the circumcision of the heart; and was moreover a 
seal of the righteousness of faith." Mr. Andrew Fuller, 
in commenting on Gen. 17, says; " Like almost all other 
positive institutions, it (circumcision) was also pre-figura- 
tive of mental purity, or ' putting off' the body of the sins of 
the flesh.' " 

The reader will perceive that these distinguished writers 
have admitted the substance, while they have rejected the 
fact; since while they admit that circumcision was a sign 
of Christ, and like baptism related to a renewal of the heart, 
they yield the substance of what is claimed by us. 

But let us examine whether a visible mark is always ne- 
cessary in scripture language, to constitute a seal; so that 
baptism cannot be a seal, because it does not leave a visible 
mark ; the word, seal in the bible, may sometimes denote 
either an instrument or the impression made by such in- 
strument. But that it always necessarily denotes either an 
instrument, or visible impression, is denied. Are we to 
understand a visible mark, or impresson, or external sign, 
when the word seal, occurs in such passages as the follow- 
ing? John 3: 33, " He that hath received his testimony, 
hath set to his seal that God is true." Ch. 6: 27, " For 
him (i. e. Christ) hath God the Father sealed: 1 1 Cor. 9 : 
2, " The seal of mine apostleship are ye, in the Lord.' 3 
2 Tim. 19, " Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth 
sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are 
his." Eph. 1 : 13, " In whom also, after that ye believed 
ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Chap^ 



148 INFANT BAPTISM. 

4 : 30, " And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby 
ye are sealed unto the day of redempton." When we read 
of a seal on the heart — of sealing up transgression — of 
sealing up the stars — of sealing instruction — of sealing to 
the destitute the fruit of christian benevolence, &-c. how 
sublime the associations in minds accustomed to see visible 
marks in all bible seals. 

But we deny that the word seal, as used in connection 
with the "sign of circumcision," is designedly employed 
to express the idea of a visible mark. That it may con- 
vey the idea of such a mark, we concede. In fact, the 
covenant of circumcision required a visible sign as a seal 
or confirmation of the covenant itself. But the doctrine 
the apostles means to inculcate is this, The sign or mark, 
was a seal 5 or confirmation ; and not that the sign or mark 
of circumcision was a visible sign. Agreeable to this 
view, Dr. Gill, the learned Baptist commentator, teaches, 
Rom. 4, that " Circumcision was a seal, not for secresy, but 
for certainty ; it being a confirmation not only of the sincer- 
ity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying righteousness, 
which was not his faith, but that which his faith looked 
to." Even Alexander Campbell, after reasoning persever- 
ingly to prove that a seal is a visible mark, therefore bap- 
tism cannot be a seal, because it makes no visible mark; 
in his " New Testament Translation" follows Macknight, 
and renders Horn. 4: 11 "And he received the mark of cir- 
cumcision as a seal/' &c. Hence, according to our oppo- 
nents' own showing, the mark of circumcision was " as a 
seal," or " a confirmation," &c. 

Our opponents sometimes raise the objection, that the 
" sign of circumcision" was a seal to Abraham only, and not 
to his descendants: because it was a " seal of the right- 
eousness of the faith which Abraham had yet being in un- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 149 

circumcision." In opposition to this Dr. Gill affirms that 
" The apostle uses the word seal concerning circumcision, 
it being a word his countrymen made use of when they 
spoke of it." According then to one learned Doctor, the 
apostle Paul and his Jewish brethren considered the " mark 
of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith," 
whether applied to Abraham or his seed. Will our oppo- 
nents maintain that the nature, design, and truths set forth 
by the rite of circumcision depended upon the character 
of the circumcised ; that it meant one thing when ap- 
plied to Abraham, and something else when applied to 
his seed ! and that circumcision was not a token of 
God's covenant, did not refer to Christ, and a renewal 
of the heart, when administered to an unworthy candi- 
date ? If circumcision was a token of God's covenant 
with Abraham, then it was a token of the same to all who 
received the rite by divine authority. If circumcision, 
from its nature and application, " was a sign of Christ, 15 
and also of the circumcision of the heart, to Abraham, then 
it signified the same to all who were, by divine appoint- 
ment proper subjects to receive the rite. And if it was a 
seal of the righteousness of faith, when applied to Abra- 
ham, then it was a seal, or confirmation of the same truth 
when applied to his seed. Could circumcision be a token 
of God's covenant, the sign of Christ and spiritual bless- 
ings, and not be a seal, or confirmation of the covenant, 
and consequently a seal of what the covenant promised ? 
If so, then when God gives his people a token, or sign, it 
confirms nothing. 

Now, what was true of circumcision, in this respect, is 
also true in relation to baptism. First : baptism is a token 
of the gospel covenant — a standing memorial of a dispensa- 
tion of grace. Second: baptism is the appointed sign of 



150 INFANT BAPTISM. 

moral cleansing, or a renewal of the heart by the Holy 
Spirit. Third : the sign of baptism, is a seal, or confirma- 
tion of that righteousness by faith, which is signified by 
ceremonial washing. Hence, while we are " sealed with 
that Holy Spirit of promise," and " sealed, by the Holy 
Spirit of God unto the day of redemption," water baptism 
is the outward sign to signify the inward grace, and con- 
firm the doctrine of righteousness by faith. 

I. Having; shown the agreement of circumcision and 
baptism we now introduce the direct testimony of the bible 
in support of our position. Col. 2 : 11, 12, " In whom ye 
also are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, where- 
in also ye are risen with him through the faith of the oper- 
ation of God." According then to the apostle Paul, (i Bap- 
tism is the circumcision of Christ ;" i. e. baptism is given 
in the place of circumcision. Should our opponents at- 
tempt, to evade this conclusion, by assuming that spiritual 
circumcision is intended ; then it must follow that ivater 
baptism is given in the place of spiritual circumcision ; or 
the circumcision of the heart ! ! Water baptism /therefore, 
must be regeneration. But if they insist that both the cir- 
cumcision and baptism alluded to by the apostles are to be 
understood in a spiritual sense; then we are presented 
with the novel idea, that spiritual baptism is given in the 
place of spiritual circumcision. Mr. Carson undertakes 
to escape, by assuming, that the apostle means to teach 
by this text that, " the circumcision made without hands, 
came in the room of the circumcision made with hands ; 
the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, came 
in the room of the cutting off the foreskin ; the circumci- 
sion of Christ came in the room of the circumcision o 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 151 

Moses. " Carson and Cox, p. 366. Here is a double and 
twisted exposition which simply amounts to this, " The 
circumcision of the heart, came in the room of circumci- 
sion in the flesh." This I consider sophistry of the very 
poorest sort, though emanating from the great Dr. Carson 
of England, 

Reader, did not Abraham, and thousands of his seed, 
receive circumcision in the flesh and also of the heart? 
Was not Abraham circumcised in heart, before he received 
circumcision in the flesh? According to Dr. Gill, circum- 
cision was a standing sign of Christ, and of moral cleansing : 
and according to Dr. Carson moral cleansing comes in the 
room of this sign, and consequently must be also a sign, 
But if the circumcision of Christ came in the room of the 
circumcision of Moses, and circumcision and baptism "both 
relate to the renewal of the heart," as Mr. Carson affirms, 
then baptism must be the external rite to signify what the 
circumcision of Moses signified, and therefore given in the 
place of circumcision. 

2. In Gal. 3 : 27, 29, we read " For as many of you as 
havejbeen baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There 
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 
there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." That this " promise" 
refers to the Abrahamic covenant, none can doubt. That 
covenant, before Messiah came, required a sign, significant 
of that event, and which from its nature was applicable 
only to males. But under the gospel dispensation, where 
baptism is given in the place of circumcision, there is no 
such distinction of male and female. Why should the 
apostle say in connection with baptism, and when speaking 
of the Abrahamic covenant, " there is neither male nor fe- 

14 



152 INFANT BAPTISM. 

male," unless he intends to bring to view the fact, that bap- 
tism is given in the place of circumcision, and is equally 
applicable to all? 

Let us in the next place see, if the followers and suc- 
cessors of the apostles believed and taught the doctrine, 
that baptism is given in the place of circumcision. 

Hermas, who was cotemporary, and the friend of the 
apostle Paul, and who is mentioned Rom. 16 : 14, express- 
ly teaches, that baptism is a seal, and is consequently giv- 
en in the place of circumcision. He says " Now that seal 
is the water of Baptism. " Wall's His. V. I. p. 48 — 54. 
McCalla's Debate, p. 228. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the 
apostles, says, " Why, if circumcision were a good thing, 
we do not use it as well as the Jews did V The answer 
is," We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circum- 
cision." He then quotes Col. 2 : 11, 12, in proof. Wall V. 
I. p. 66. 

Cyprian and the council of Carthage. About 150 years 
after the apostles, Cyprian, in council with his ministerial 
brethren, 66 in number ; received a letter from Fidus ask- 
ing whether it was proper to baptize an infant before the 
eighth day, as agreeable to the rule of circumcision. The 
council unanimously affirms that it is; and then declares 
that " Christ has given us baptism, the spiritual circumci- 
sion." ib. p. 129—132. Pond p. 81. The question, as to 
the eighth day, and the answer, show conclusively that bap- 
tism was considered as the substitute of circumcision. 

Basil says " A Jew does not delay circumcision because 
of the threatening that every soul that is not circumcised 
the eighth day shall be cut off from his people : and doth 
thou put off the circumcision made without hands, which 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 153 

is performed in baptism when thou hearest the Lord say, 
except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot en- 
ter into the kingdom of God." Pond. 81. 

Augustin says, " Our communion, I mean the grace of 
baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thou- 
sand benefits. And it has no determinate time as the an- 
cient circumcision had ; but one in the very beginning of 
his age, or one that is the middle of it, or one that is in 
his old age may receive this circumcision made without 
hands." lb. 82. 

Epiphanius says, " The law had circumcision in the 
flesh, serving for a time, till the great circumcision came, 
that is, baptism, which circumcises us from our sins, and 
seals us unto the name of God." M'Calla, p. 222. 

We might continue these quotations to a much greater 
extent, but consider it unnecessary. That such was the 
universal sentiment of the church within 150 years of the 
apostles, is evident from the fact that 66 bishops in coun- 
cil, without dissent or protest, decide that " Christ has giv- 
en us baptism, the spiritual circumcision." But where were 
our opponents during all this time 1 In these days they 
abound in zeal to rebuke and disapprove the idea that bap- 
tism is given in the place of circumcision. But where is 
the decree of their councils, or the solitary dissent of some 
faithful elder, showing a different opinion in the church 
of God, in the time of Cyprian ! 

We are now prepared to look at the Great Commis- 
sion, "[Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, 
baptizing them," &,c. In the first place we have shown, 
that God put the children of his professed people into the 
ehurch, and under the same covenant, by the same rite of 



154 INFANT BAPTISM. 

initiation. Second : There is no evidence on record, thaf 
God has repealed, or so changed the original constitution 
of the church, as to change the covenant and church rela- 
tion of children. Third : Jesus Christ sent his apostles to 
make disciples, or proselytes, and baptize them. Fourth: 
The children of God's people bear names and enjoy rela- 
tions, under both Old and New Testament dispensations, 
peculiar to such, and such only, as are admitted into cove- 
nant relation with the church. Fifth : The baptism of 
children was common, both before and after Christ came, 
and the apostles knew it. Sixth: Baptism is given in the 
place of circumcision. How then are we to understand the 
commission to make disciples, and baptize them? How 
did those Jewish embassadors of Christ understand it, who 
heard from the lips of their divine Master, " Go ye there- 
fore," &c. Would they ; nay, could they infer the dis- 
memberment of the seed of believers ? Never ! without an 
express law revoking the ancient constitution of their 
church, and an unequivocal provision, ordaining the rejec- 
tion of children ; a provision that would have met with 
stern opposition from the Jews. But inspired history is si- 
lent as to such change, provision, or opposition ! ! 

The change from the bloody rite of circumcision to 
water baptism is illustrated in a sermon by Rev. Erdix 
Tenny, of Lyme, N. H. by the following similitude. " A 
man orders his servants to mark the sheep of his flock with 
a bloody sign; and is careful to add, see that you apply 
this sign to all the lambs also. Afterwards he sees fit to 
dispense with the Moody sign made with a knife in the 
flesh ; and ordains that his servants mark his sheep with 
'paint: but he says nothing about the lambs. Will those 
servants, because the marking is a " positive institution," 
argue that the lambs are no longer to be marked 1 A& 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 155 

they buy more sheep with lambs, will they mark the sheep, 
but say they have no warrant for marking the lambs? The 
contrary. And so from the very circumstances of the case, 
the disciples of Christ understanding the design and import 
of baptism, and having been previously accustomed to ex- 
tend another sign of the same import and use, to children, 
would naturally interpret the command to baptize, as 
implying the baptism of infants." Hall on Bap. p. 156. 

But how do our Baptist brethren evade the force of these 
facts and arguments ? What is the great objection to in- 
fant baptism. Whoever has attended to this controversy 
« is already familiar with the fact, that our opponents insist, 
that " gospel faith must always precede baptising Indeed, 
" believer's baptism" and " immersion" is the founda- 
tion, and top-stone of the Baptist Church, so far as its 
distinctive character is concerned. Remove these pecu- 
liarities and you annihilate the " close-communion, Calvin- 
istic Baptist Church." Should they insist upon immersion, 
but admit infant baptism, they necessarily lose their es- 
sential character, and become ' Pedobaptists.' Hence, the 
existence of the Baptist Church, as such, depends upon the 
assumption, that "faith must always precede gospel bap- 
tism." We might reasonably suppose that a position in- 
volving the very existence of a church, would be fortified 
and strengthened with some express declarations of God's 
word, so clear and pointed, as at least to present the ap- 
pearance of a " Thus saith the Lord." Consistency seems 
to demand that our opponents furnish an express law for 
exclusive " believer's baptism," since, after we have shown 
that God originally put the children of his people in the 
church, they call for a " Thus saith the Lord," to prove 
that children are to be continued in the church. But, 
alas ! their " Thus saith the Lord" tapers off to a mere in- 
14* 



156 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ference, drawn from controverted premises ! Still worse 
we intend to show, that the famous argument for exclu- 
sive " believer's baptism," is a mere play upon words. 

Our opponents endeavor to support their position, that 
" faith and repentance must precede baptism," by refer- 
ence to such texts as the following : Mark 16 : 16 — " He 
that helieveth and is baptized shall be saved." Acts 8 : 
36, 37 — " And the eunuch said, See, here is water ; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, if thou 
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Acts 2 : 38 — 
" Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ," &c. 

But how do these passages of scripture, disapprove in- 
fant baptism ? Wherein do these texts differ from the teach- 
ings of those who practice infant baptism ? Wherein do 
they differ from the instruction of an Israelite, who carried 
out the spirit and des ; gn of the Abrahamic covenant, only 
as an Israelite would put circumcision, where the New 
Testament teachers put baptism 1 But let us bring this ob- 
jection in all its parts to the test of logic and sound criti- 
cism. 

1. The objection, and argument by which it is support- 
ed does not meet the question. It affirms that New 
Testament teachers made faith and repentance a condi- 
tion, or qualification for baptism. But did apostles and 
primitive teachers preach to infants ? Of whom did they 
require faith as a pre-requisite for baptism ? Certainly of 
those capable of exercising it. God never required any 
thing of infants as a condition. Their rights, and relations 
to God's covenant and the visible church, are based upon 
the faith of their natural guardians or parents. Hence on 
the day of Pentecost, Peter is heard to say " Repent and 
be baptized every one of you .... For the promise is 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 157 

unto you, and to your children." Had the Old Patriarch, 
Abraham himself addressed a Gentile upon the subject of 
embracing the true religion, he would have said " First 
embrace the true God yourself, and enter into covenant 
with him, and then administer the token of God's covenant 
upon your children." Evangelical ministers have always 
preached repentance and faith to adults as qualifications 
for baptism. Where then is the force, or application of 
the Baptist argument, which assumes, that " infants are 
excluded from baptism, because the apostles preached to 
their hearers, that they must repent and believe before they 
could receive baptism." A syllogism to logically set forth 
such an argument, must be constructed somewhat after the 
following order. 

1. The gospel requires faith and repentance, of all who 
are capable of these exercises, before baptism. 

2. Infants are incapable of exercising faith and repen- 
tance. 

3. Therefore, infants, who are incapable of faith and re- 
pentance, must not be baptized. 

Now a school boy can see, that infants are not in the 
premises, and consequently should not be in the conclusion. 
Leave out infants and the conclusion is just. Let the read- 
er now look at the objection dressed in its proper garb, 
and presented in its real character. " God requires of 
adults a profession of faith, as a condition of baptism, 
therefore infants must not be baptized." 

Suppose there had been a Baptist elder in the days of 
Paul ; and in one of Paul's sermons he heard the apostle 
advance the sentiment. " For circumcision verily prof- 
iteth, if thou keep the law," &c. Rom. 2 : 25. So he goes 
to work and frames an argument against infant circumci- 
sion, making the apostle's remark the basis of a syllogism. 



158 INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. Without obedience to the law circumcision is uri* 
profitable. 

2. Infants cannot obey or keep the law. 

3. Therefore infant circumcision is unprofitable and 
useless, consequently, none but obedient adults should ev- 
er be circumcised, for such only can keep the law. See 
P. Edwards, p. 34. 

Now we submit it to the candid, whether such a con- 
clusion would not be as logical as the inference drawn 
from the premises of our opponents for exclusive believer's 
baptism. And what the apostle affirms concerning cir- 
cumcision, is also true of baptism, without obedience it is 
unprofitable. 

2. In the next place, the great argument against infant 
baptism derived from such texts, to a great extent is a mere 
play upon words. Why, repentance and faith must pre- 
cede baptism, because the word baptize comes after faith 
and repentance. Supose we should avail ourselves of this 
logic in the use of the following passages, John 3:5, " Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God/' Water, therefore, or 
baptism must precede the work of the Spirit, because wa- 
ter is first in order. Mark 1 : 4, " John did baptize in the 
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of/sins." John therefore first baptized his can- 
didates and afterwards preached to them about the baptism 
of repentance. Mark 16: 16, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved.'' This text don't say He that be- 
lieveth, and is afterwards baptized ; but is already baptized. 
Reader, if this is descending, pardon us, we have sim- 
ply used the argument reductio ad absurdum. 

3. We object to this argument of our opponents be- 
cause it proves altogether too much. Dare our opponents 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 159 

abide by their own position ; that gospel faith and repen- 
tance must always precede baptism ? Let us give them a 
trial. 

1. Gospel faith and repentance must always precede 
baptism. 

2. The Lord Jesus Christ could not exercise gospel 
faith and repentance. 

3. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ ought not to have 
been baptized. 

This argument, like the fabled traveler, seems to " Blow 
hot and cold with the same breath. " Do our opponents 
attempt to escape by the plea, that Christ was an exception 
to their doctrine of " believer's baptism?" Where is the 
" Thus saith the Lord ?" 

But we have said, this argument of our opponents proves 
altogether too much. To illustrate this point we will in- 
troduce P. Edwards, p. 27. " And to show how miserably 
fallacious the reasoning of the Baptists is, I will lay down 
a plan of their logic on this text, which will produce more 
conclusions than there are principle words in that part of 
the verse. The place is Mark 16 : It), c He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved.' Now as the Baptists rea- 
son from the order of the words, I will mark them with 

1 2 3 

figures — believeth — baptized — saved. The logic is as fol- 
lows : Take the first and second — believeth — baptized — 
and say with the Baptists : First : None are to be baptized 
but such as believe, because believing must be before bap- 
tizing. — 1 ' believeth' — 2 ' baptized.' This will conclude 
against infant baptism. Next, take the first and third — 
believeth — saved — and say in the same way : Second : 
None are to be saved but such as believe, because believ- 
ing must be before saving — 1, 'Believeth' — 3, 'Saved.' 
This concludes against infant salvation. Now take the 



160 INFANT BAPTISM. 

second and third — baptized — saved — and argue in the 
same manner : Third : None are to be saved, but such as 
are baptized, because baptizing must go before saving — 

2, ' Baptized' — 3, * Saved.' This will conclude on the side 
of infant baptism, they must be baptized, or they cannot be 
saved. Lastly, take all three — believeth — baptized — saved 
— and say : Fourthly : None are to be saved but such as 
believe and are baptized, because believing and baptizing 
must be before saving — 1, ' Believeth' — 2, ' baptized' — 

3, Saved.' This concludes against the salvation of believ- 
ers in Jesus Christ, if they have not been baptized, And 
so upon the principle of the Baptists, it concludes against 
the salvation of all Pedobaptists. All these conclusions 
arising from the same reasoning, may serve as a specimen 
to show the fallacious mode of arguing against infant bap- 
tism, adopted by the Baptists." 

Hence, according to the reasoning of our opponents, if 
infants are saved, they must be baptized, because " bap- 
tized" certainly comes before " saved," and " Except a 
man," or as it may read, " Except any one be born of wa- 
ter and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." We might well suppose, that the greater included 
the less, and consequently, if infants can be saved without 
faith, they ought to receive baptism, the sign of that moral 
cleansing which all consider as a fitness for salvation. 

The Petrobrussians, a sect that arose about the begin- 
ning of the 12th century, and who were the first sect on 
earth, that ever admitted water baptism, but rejected the 
doctrine of infant baptism, maintained, that, as infants 
could not believe, they could not be saved; therefore 
must not be baptized. They reasoned upon Mark 16 : 16, 
as our opponents now do — 1 ' believe'— 2 ' baptize' — sim- 
ply adding the third term in order, " saved." Let our 
reader decide as to the comparative consistency of our 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 161 

ancient and modern opponents — See Wall's His. Inf. Bap. 
Vol. 2, p. 256—278. Miller's Bap. p. 31, 32. 

Good Conscience. 

We now invite attention to another objection — the twin- 
sister to the argument for exclusive " believer's baptism," 
which our opponents urge with considerable confidence. 
The objection is this, " Baptism is the answer of a good 
conscience ; and as infants can have no conscience about 
it, therefore they ought not to be baptized." The reader 
will perceive that this objection is based upon 1 Peter 3 : 
21. 6i The like figure whereunto even baptism, doth also 
now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." Now, the simple truth set 
forth by the apostle is this ; Noah and his family, secure 
in the ark, " were saved by water," while the ungodly 
world perished : so water baptism now, points to the way 
and means of salvation ; and is, therefore, a Christian du- 
ty; or " The answer of a good conscience towards God." 
When Paul declared " I have lived in all good conscience 
before God until this day," he simply meant, that he had 
endeavored to do his duty as a sincere, honest man. 

Now let us apply this exposition to the covenant of cir- 
cumcision. All agree that circumcision was applied to in- 
fants by divine authority. But let me inquire, was not 
that circumcision, which was a " sign of Christ," and a 
" renewal of the heart" also a duty binding upon every true 
worshiper of God, under the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion ? Was knot the " answer of a good conscience to- 
wards God" whenever received as a'* token" of God's 
covenant ? Or had conscience nothing to do with circum- 
cision ? Was it all the same whether conscience was good, 



162 INFANT BAPTISM. 

bad, or indifferent? If circumcision had nothing to do with 
conscience ; then it could not be true " He is not a Jew, 
which is one (only) outwardly : neither is that circumcision 
which is (only) outwardly in the flesh !" Paul was mistaken 
when he affirmed " He is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; 
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not 
in the letter !" If circumcision had nothing to do with con- 
science, then it had nothing to do with a covenant that 
required obedience ! The difficulty in the argument of our 
opponents is this, their premises and conclusions do not 
live on speaking terms — are not even neighbors. They 
put adults in their premises, and adults and infants in 
their conclusions. When God says to adults, believe, or 
repent, and be baptized ; our opponents say, " Infants 
cannot repent, or believe ; therefore must not be bap- 
tized !" When God says, " Baptism is the answer of a good 
conscience ;" our opponents contend, that " infants can 
have no conscience about it ; therefore, must not be bap- 
tized.'' And to be consistent, when God says " circum- 
cision verily profiteth if thou keep the law ;" or " circum- 
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
letter ;" our opponents should reply ; " Infants cannot keep 
the law — and be circumcised in heart ; therefore infant 
circumcision was wrong ! !" 

But let us see, whether our opponents will abide by the 
legitimate results of their own position. In other words, 
will they reduce their own principles to practice ; and 
thus demonstrate their soundness and utility ; as well as 
their own confidence in them. With them, the right, and 
validity of baptism, depend upon " the answer of a good 
conscience towards God." Now for an illustration of the 

principle. In the Town of P a young man went to a 

Baptist elder, and expressed a desire to receive " believer's 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 163 

baptism," As he professed to be a convert, of course, no 
objections were raised. He was accordingly examined by 
the church— immersed, and duly received into full com- 
munion and fellowship. Soon after his baptism he visited 
the eli er, and m rmed him, that his sole design in ask- 
ing baptism, was to gain a worldly object, that he neither 
believed in Jesus Christ, nor received the Bible as a rev- 
elation from God ; and as the object for which he asked 
baptism was now gained, he requested his name to be 
stricken from he church records. About 8 months after 
his excommunication from the church, th s same young 
man became indeed a convert, and with hearty confes- 
sion of sin, and tears sought forgiveness, and asked to be 
received again into the church from which he had been 
expelled ; and was accordingly restored. Perhaps our rea- 
der will inquire, k< Was he re-baptized?" By no means — 
he had already been immersed ! But had he received " be- 
liever's baptism?" Did he " answer a good conscience to- 
wards God," when baptized in his infidelity, and base 
hypocrisy ? Do our opponents spy, " the illustration pre- 
sents a very extraordinary case?' We admit it. But 
unless the Baptist church is vastly more pure, than ever 
we believed it to be — much purer than any other church 
on earth, there are hundreds of instances, where individ- 
uals become members without piety ; apostatize and are 
excommunicated ; but subsequently become genuine con- 
verts, and are restored to the church. Do our brethren 
ever think of re-baptizing them ! Mormonism would give 
them a second, or even a third baptism : but we have yet 
to learn that the regular Baptist church will descend to 
such extremes of absurdity. But what becomes of " be- 
liever's baptism V 9 Where is the " answer of a good con- 
science" in such cases? Do our opponents argue, that 

15 



164 INFANT BAPTISM. 

they may accept of their former baptism? We reply, so 
may infants when converted to God. 

Now we assume, that the validity of baptism does not 
depend, either upon the piety of the minister, or faith of 
the candidate ; but that water applied in the " Name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/' by an 
acknowledged minister of Christ, is gospel baptism ; and 
always signifies one and the same thing, whether applied 
to believer, or unbeliever, infant, or adult. Let our oppo- 
nents assume that the validity of baptism does depend upon 
the piety of the minister, or candidate, and see what will 
be the results. 

1. Suppose the validity of baptism depends upon the pi- 
ety of the minister; how can one in fifty prove that they 
have ever received valid, gospel baptism? Can they prove 
the piety of the ministry ? If so, then they can search the 
heart ! Again ; whenever a Baptist minister furnishes ev- 
idence, that he is a servant of Satan, instead of a true min- 
ister of Jesus Christ, all who have received baptism at 
his hands, must be re-baptized. Do our Baptist brethren 
have no apostate ministers, who renounce the faith of 
Christ? Where is the notorious Kneeland, and his bap- 
tized converts ? 

2. But in the case of the subject, or candidate, faith 
must precede baptism — the validity of the ordinance de- 
pends upon piety in the subject. So reason our opponents. 
Well, if the validity of baptism depends upon the faith, or 
piety of the subject, then the law of consistency binds our 
opponents to re-baptize all apostates and excommunicated 
persons, who repent and return to the church, whenever 
there is good reason to believe that such persons were not 
soundly converted to God, when first baptized. Again : 
all those church members who doubt their conversion at 



new testament argument. 165 

the time of entering the church, must be re-baptized, or 
live in doubt whether they have ever received gospel bap- 
tism, and consequently have any right to the table of our 
Lord ! In fact, the whole Baptist church may to-day, 
fellowship and commune with 10,000 immersed church 
members, who have never received gospel baptism, because 
baptized without saving faith ! Well said the Psalmist, " If 
the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do." 
u Consistency is a jewel" indeed. 

But our own premises relieve us of all this uncertainty 
and doubt. An acknowledged gospel minister applies wa- 
ter to the subject, in the name of the sacred Trinity, and 
it is valid gospel baptism, Water thus applied, always sig- 
nifies one and the same thing ; it is God's chosen element, 
the symbol, or sign of moral cleansing. Whether applied 
to infants, or adults, is a mere circumstance, it still ex- 
presses this great truth " moral cleansing." According to 
the highest Baptist authorities, such as Gill, Carson, and 
Fuller, " circumcision was a sign of Christ," and " related 
to a renewal of the heart." No matter to whom it was ap- 
plied — infants or adults, believers or unbelievers ; it was 
the same " token," and signified the same thing. So of 
baptism ; it is the sign of moral cleansing, and the char- 
acter of the subject can neither change its significancy, 
nor destroy its validity. To suppose, that the nature and 
design of a " positive institution'' depends upon the char- 
acter of such as may observe it, is an absurdity on the 
face of the subject. Did the nature and design of the 
Passover depend upon the character of those who observ- 
ed it? Suppose a blank infidel should take his seat among 
the people of God, at the communiontable, and receive 
the consecrated symbols of our Lord's body and blood ! 
Does the fact of his infidelity change the significancy of 



166 INFANT BAPTISM. 

those symbols ? Does the consecrated bread and write! 
cease to point to the broken body and shed blood of our 
Lord, because in the hands of a base man ? Did these ele- 
ments signify one thing in the hands of John, and some- 
thing else in the hands of Judas T The same principle ap* 
plies to baptism. God has ordained the elements, and 
the form of words ; and decided what wafer thus applied 
shall signify; rind whether applied to converted P^ul, or 
Elymas, the s rcerer, it signifies the same. Baptism may 
be administered to improper persons, but it is baptism still, 
and still the sign of moral cleansing. Hence, like circum- 
cision, it is as significant when applied to an unconscious 
infant, as when administered to a believing adult. 

Baptizing Domestics. 

Perhaps, in the present connection, it is due the reader 
to call up another objection ; somewhat formidable, be- 
cause frequently urged with an air of triumph. Our op<- 
ponents claim, that if we take the Abrahamic covenant, 
and the practice of Abraham for our guide ; then we must 
give the rite of baptism, not only to our children, but also 
to our domestics ; because the servants of Abraham were 
all circumcised upon the ground of Abraham's faith. In 
other words, Abraham's covenant and faith was the ground 
of their circumcision ; there ore. our covenant and faith, 
must include children and domestics as subjects of bap- 
tism. Our answer to this objection will show, how easy it 
is to raise up plausible objections by reasoning from false 
premises. Now the very thing assumed, relative to Abra- 
ham's servants, we deny. We deny that a single adult 
servant was circumcised upon, the ground of Abraham's 
faith; but affirm that they were circumcised upon the 
profession of their own faith.; and that they then broughi 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 167 

their children with them to receive the " token of God's 
covenant." Let the candid look at a few simple facts. 

1. God called Abraham out from the idolatrous world, 
for the express purpose of raising up, and establishing the 
true religion. But did Abraham commence the enterprise 
by gathering about him several hundred impenitent sin- 
ners, as servants ; for we find as early as the 14th chap, of 
Gen. that Abraham could arm 318 servants. What kind 
of a church would Dr. Judson make with 318 impenitent 
Burmans, not to speak of women and children. 

2. How did Abraham obtain so many servants ? We 
read in Gen. 12 : 5, " And Abram took Sarai his wife, and 
Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had 
gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and 
they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." The 
Chaldee paraphrasts translate it " The souls of those whom 
they proselyted in Haran" See Clarke's Com. The 
Jerusalem Targum understands it, " All the souls which 
he had subdued unto the law." But take another text, Gen. 
14:14, "And when Abram heard that his brother was 
taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his 
own house, 318, and pursued them unto Dan." But what 
are we to understand by " trained servants ?" Does the 
word " train 1 ' in this place indicate military discipline ? 
We were aware that Abraham was somewhat conspicuous 
in Scripture history, as the father of believers — a man of 
unexampled faith ; but his military fame must be apocry- 
phal. The word train in this connection can hardly de- 
scribe a military drill. Let us then seek for a higher 
meaning — one more consonant with the character of him, 
who in Scripture language is styled " The friend of God." 
The Hebrew word for " trained"' may be rendered " cate- 
chised ;" hence they were instructed in the nature of the 

15* 



168 INFANT BAPTISM. 

true religion. But suppose we take the word train. God 
says " Train up a child in the way he should go/' &c. Who 
ever thought of applying this to any thing but a religious 
education? Such an education, a good man would give 
servants born in his own house. We may therefore safely 
conclude, that servants '• proselyted" to the worship of 
Abraham's God ; and < thers born in his house — " cate- 
chised" and " trained" up to manhood, would be prepared 
to enter into covenant with God for themselves and on the 
profession of their own faith. 

3. But that Abraham's servants entered voluntarily into 
covenant with God, and received the sign of circumcision , 
is evident from the nature of the case. It would have 
been no small job, to drive up 318 trained servants and 
oblige them to submit to circumcision : rather more than 
the Old Patriarch could have accomplished, unless they 
differed materially from modern sinners. 

4. God would allow Abraham to keep none but such as 
professed the same religion with himself. Hence God's 
covenant provided that " the uncircumcised soul should 
be cut off from his people." 

5. The character of Abraham is proof that his adult 
servants were all piously educated, and prepared to make 
a public profession of religion. God says, Gen. 18: 19, 
&c For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his 
children and his household after him, and they shall keep 
the ways of the Lord to do justice and judgment" 

What slander then, to represent Abraham as keeping a 
gang of servants, too ignorant or wicked to enter into 
covenant with God for themselves : but good Old Abra- 
ham must stand up godfather for his numerous adult 
household ! Reader, " faithful Abraham" was no religious 
sponser for his servants ; his servants were too well in- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 1G9 

structed to require a profession of faith by proxy. No : 
they received the rite of circumcision, as Abraham did, as 
a token of God's covenant — a sign of Christ, and of the 
circumcision of the heart. 

Arguments Direct. 

About 20 years after the death of Christ, a discussion 
came up in the church relative to circumcising the gen- 
tiles, and requiring them to keep the law. See Acts 15. 
So a council was called at Jerusalem, to consider the 
matter. This council sent Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Si- 
las to Antioch with a letter of instruction, as follows : 
1. Abstain from meats offered to idols. 2. Abstain from 
blood. 3. I rom things strangled. 4. From fornication. 
Now this discussion is conclusive proof that the Jews con- 
tinued to practice circumcision, although under the Gos- 
pel dispensation. 

This same subject is introduced again in Acts 21 : 20 
— 24, after the apostle Paul returned to Jerusalem ; about 
A. D. 60. Paul was accused of preaching against cir- 
cumcision and the " lav of Moses. " J-ames says to him, 
" Thou seest brothe r, how many thousands of the Jews 
there are that believe, and they are all zealous of the law ; 
and are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews 
which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying 
they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to 
walk after the customs." Now from this discussion about 
circumcision, we draw the following inference. 1. Both 
circumcision and baptism were practiced in the christian 
church many years after the gospel dispensation com- 
menced. If our opponents argue that this goes against 
the idea that baptism was given in the place of circumci- 
sion ; then we reply, that the same argument would prove 



170 INFANT BAPTISM. 

that the gospel dispensation did not substitute the ceremo- 
nial dispensation, because then some believing Jews in- 
sisted, that the Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses, as 
well as be circumcised. 

2. It is evident that these believing Jews considered 
circumcision as a religious rite pertaining to the true vis- 
ible church. If not, why insist that the Gentiles must cir- 
cumcise their children ? and keep the law of Moses. 

3. If these believing Jews continued to circumcise their 
children, under the gospel dispensation, then they still 
considered the Abrahamic covenant, as the covenant of 
the church ; and their children as sustaining the same re- 
lation as formerly. Did the believing Jews circumcise 
their children, and then submit to their being cast out of 
the church, and cut off from the rights and privileges once 
enjoyed ? Believe it, who can ! 

4. If the believing Jews circumcise their children, then 
they considered them in covenant relation with the church ; 
unless circumcision was used for an entire different pur- 
pose from what it ever had been. But were these children 
admitted by circumcision ivithout baptism ? That their pa- 
rents were both circumcised and baptized is certain. That 
Timothy and Titus were both circumcised and baptized, will 
not be denied, unless our opponents maintain that baptism 
was not absolutely essential to membership. Acts 16 : 3. 
Gal. 2 : 3. But were the children of God's people admit- 
ted to covenant relation with the church, without baptism ? 
Or is it reasonable to suppose that like circumcised adults 
they were also baptized? To our mind, the latter is quite 
certain. 

5. But look at the ground of complaint against Paul. 
James says, " Thou seest brother, how many thousands of 
the Jews there are which believe, and are all zealous of 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 171 

the law; and are informed of thee that thou teachest all 
the Jews ichich are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses , 
saying that they aught not to circumcise their children, 
neither to icalk after the cvstoms." From this, it is evi- 
dent that Paul had something to say among the Gentiles 
about children ; Mr. Taylor observes in connection with 
this text, "They (the Jews) had heard that he did some- 
thing, or advised something to be done concerning them; 
what could it e ? W ha did he substitute in the place of 
circumcision 1 We know of nothing but baptism that could 
give occasion to this information respecting Paul's pro- 
ceedings. 1 ' Apos. Bap p. ?0. Let us examine whether 
there is any thing in Paul's preaching and practice among 
the Gentiles calculated to give rise to such information. 
In theirs* place, that Paul should insist upon the duty of 
baptism, and at the same time tolerate circumcision among 
the Jczvs ; while in mixed societies — Jews and Gentiles, he 
taught that circumcision was unnecessary; perfectly ac- 
cords with what he, himself affirms concerning his course, 
1 Cor. 9 : 19 — 23. He became all things to all men, that 
he might by all means save some. Paul well knew, that 
to believing Jews, who had already embraced the Messiah, 
circumcision would do no injury. While to allow circum- 
cision in mixed communities would be to place a stum- 
bling block before the Gentiles, or impose upon them a 
useless rite. And still the conciliatory spirit of the apos- 
tle led him to circumcise Timothy and Titus — the one a 
Greek, and the other a Greek on his- father's side. 

Secondly : There was also some foundation for a report, 
that while Paul taught the Jews, who dwelt among the 
Gentiles, that the circumcision of children was no longer 
necessary ; he did, both by precept and example teach 
that the baptism of children was necessary. For example, 



172 INFANT BAPTISM. 

when at Philippi, he did " baptize Lydia and her house* 
hold.'' He did say to the anxious jailor, u Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house;' 1 
and then " straightway" he did " baptize the jailor and all 
his." And when at Corinth, Paul did " baptize the house- 
hold of Stephanas." 

Now these facts, no doubt were afterwards reported to 
the believing Jews who dwelt in Jerusalem ; and who con- 
tinued to circumcise as well as baptize their children. 
But these reports spake only of Paul's " baptizing house- 
holds" — nothing said about circumcision — a rite always ad- 
ministered, both to the head of the family when converted, 
and to his household. The Jews therefore, were jealous 
for the " customs" of their fathers. 

If our conclusions, in reasoning upon this subject, are 
not correct, then we are driven to one of two things; ei- 
ther the " many thousands of believing Jews which dwelt 
in Jerusalem circumcised their children and cast them out 
of the church; or they were admitted into covenant with 
the church without baptism ! 1 If the latter be true, then 
the church was made up of baptized and unbaptized mem- 
bers ; but if the former, then circumcision was not applied 
as a token of God's covenant. We leave our opponents to 
reconcile these points while we abide by our position that 
both believing parents and their children were first cir* 
cumcised and then baptized. 

Children brought to Christ. 

The relation that the children of God's people sustain 
to the church under the gospel dispensation, is beautifully 
set forth in the language of our Saviour, in Luke 18 : 15, 
16. " And they brought unto him also infants, that he 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 173 

would touch them : but when his disciples saw it they re- 
buked them." But what did Christ say ? 

" But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of 
such is the kingdom of God" This same incident is rela- 
ted in Matt. 19 : 13—15. Mark 10 : 13—16. Now we do 
not pretend that these infants were baptized by Christ ; 
or that they were brought to him for baptism. The point 
is simply this ; what relation do they sustain to the church 
under the gospel dispensation, according to the authority 
of Christ. If the children of God's people are component 
parts of the church — belong to it ; then they must be bap- 
tized. 

1. These infants were brought to Christ by believing 
parents. This will scarcely be denied, since it is evident 
that they were brought to Christ for his blessing. That 
such as did not believe in Chirst, should bring them, would 
be indeed singular — too singular to be true. 

2. They were infants, and not adults. 1. They are ex- 
pressly called infants. Matthew calls them, not merely 
children, but " little children." Mark says " young chil- 
dren." The word children would have been sufficient, 
and more likely to convey the truth, had they been old 
enough to believe in Christ. 2. That they were infants is 
farther evident, from the fact that they were " brought" to 
Christ, or carried in the arms of their parents. 3. The 
Saviour " took them up in his arms." Hence they were 
" little children," so young in years as to require carrying, 
or handling as is usual with infants before they run alone. 

It seems there were some who rebuked those individu- 
als that brought children to Christ; but the Saviour was 
much displeased, and said " Suffer little children to come 



174 INFANT BAPTISM. 

unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom 
of God." 

Now the question arises, as to what the Saviour intends 
to teach by the declaration ; " Fo of such is the kingdom of 
God." The phrase " kingdom oi God" and " kingdom of 
heaven, "&c. frequently denotes the gospel church on earth. 
That such is its meaning m this p ace we are fully persua- 
ded. Dr. Gill, the Baptist commentator is of his opinion ; 
hence he remarks on Matt. 19: 14, "It is as f our Lord 
should say, Don't drive away these chil Iren from my per- 
son and presence ; they are lively emblems or the proper 
subjects of a gospel church state; an 1 of uch that shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven ; by thes? I may instruct 
and point out to you, what converted persons should be, 
who have a place in my church be ow, ani expect to enter 
into my kingdom and glory above." Hence the " king- 
dom of God" in this place is equivalent to "the church 
below." In Matt. 21 : 43, the Saviour says to the unbe- 
lieving Jews, " Therefore, say I unto you, the kingdom of 
God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring- 
ing forth the fruits thereof." What kingdom was this? 
Certainly not the kingdom of glory, because that never be- 
longed to unbelieving Jews. Part First, p. 77, 78. 

But admit for the sake of argument, that the phrase 
"kingdom of God" means " kingdom of glory," and what 
follows ? Why, such children sustain a saving relation to 
Jesus Christ ; and should therefore receive the sign of 
their union with him. Shall we exclude from his king- 
dom, or church on earth, such as belong to the kingdom 
of glory above ? We might reduce the question to a syllo- 
gistic form. 

1. All who are saved through our Lord Jesus Christ are 
proper subjects of baptism. 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 175 

2. Infants and believing adults are saved through our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

3. Therefore, infants and believing adults are proper 
subjects of baptism. 

Should it be objected that infants may grow up unbe- 
lievers, we reply, that would not alter the fact, they were 
proper subjects of baptism. Infants circumcised might 
and frequently did grow up, and become the most aban- 
doned characters. But that does not prove that God mis- 
took the proper subjects of circumcision when he put 
parents and their children under the same covenant. 

On this passage Dr. Watson observes, p. 36, " Take it that by the 
4 kingdom of God,' or c of heaven,' our Lord means the glorified 
state of his church : it must be granted that none can enter into 
heaven who are not redeemed by Christ, and who do not stand in a 
vital relation to him as members of his mystical body, or otherwise 
we should place human and fallen beings in that heavenly state who 
are unconnected with Christ as their Redeemer, and uncleansed by 
him as the Sanctifier of his redeemed. Now this relation must 
exist on earth before it can exist in heaven ; or else we assign the 
work of sanctifying the fallen nature of man to a future state, which 
is contrary to the scriptures. If infants, therefore, are thus redeem- 
ed and sanctified in their nature, and are before death made e meet 
for the inheritance of the saints in light;' so that in this world they 
are placed in the same relation to Christ as an adult believer, who 
derives sanctifying influence from him, they are therefore the mem- 
bers of his church,— they partake the grace of the covenant, 'I will 
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.' In other 
words, they are made members of Christ's church, and are entitled 
to be recognized as such by the administration of the visible sign of 
initiation into some visible branch of it." 

Mr. Edwards says " The Baptists in general understand 
this (kingdom of God) of a state of glory, and allow infants 
to belong to that, but deny that they belong to the church. 
This, indeed, is granting the greater and denying the less; 

16 



176 INFANT BAPTISM. 

and therefore an argument may be taken from what they 
grant, to destroy what they deny ; that is, an argument a 
majore ad minus. If infants belong to a state of glory, 
which is the greater ; then much more do they belong to 
a church state, which is the less. Besides, as the institu- 
tion of a church is a dispensation of God which leads to 
glory, it is absurd to grant persons a place in glory, and 
at the same time deny them a place in that dispensation 
which leads to it." p. 69. 

Hence, if we should grant that by " kingdom of God," 
the kingdom of glory is intended, it does not relieve our 
opponents of their embarrassments. It was this dilemma 
that drove the Petrobrussians, the first sect that ever 
denied the right of infant baptism, yet admitted water bap- 
tism, into a denial of infant salvation. To admit that 
" of such is the kingdom of glory," and deny such the 
sign of God's grace, was too glaring, even for these early 
opposers. 

But our opponents are provided with another objection 
based upon the same text. They say, " The phrase i For 
of such,' relates to adults of like disposition ;" hence the 
text would read " Suffer little children to come unto me, 
and forbid them not : for of such adults is the kingdom of 
God." On this interpretation Mr. Edwards remarks as 
follows : " Some of the Baptists remarking upon the 
phrase ton tbiouton, of such, or of such like, affirm that our 
Lord meant adults of a child-like disposition, and that of 
these, and not of the infants, he said, of such is the king- 
dom of God. This construction, which indeed has nothing 
to support it, will appear very uncouth, when we consider 
these words of our Lord, as a reason for bringing and per- 
mitting the little children to come to him. Suffer them to 
come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. But 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 177 

this exposition, besides that it makes our Lord speak ob- 
scurely, represents him as giving a reason quite distant 
from the subject he was upon. For whereas a reason for 
coming should be taken from those who are to come, and 
not from others ; this exposition makes our Lord say, Suf- 
fer these to come, because those belong to the kingdom. 
To say, adults belong to the kingdom of God, is no good 
reason for bringing infants to Christ. It is a much better 
one to say, suffer these little children to come, because 
these little children, and others like them belong to the 
kingdom of God. But if it be said, others belong to the 
kingdom of God, because they are like infants, then infants 
must belong to the kingdom of God because they are like 
them. The truth is, our Lord evidently speaks of infants 
as he had done before, in the preceding passage/' p. 68. 

Says Dr. Miller, " The language which our Lord him- 
self employs concerning them (infants) is remarkable ; of 
such is v the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is the 
kingdom of heaven. It is precisely the same form of ex- 
pression in the original, which our Lord uses in the com- 
mencement of his sermon on the mount, when he says 
" Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven ;" " Blessed are they that are persecuted for 
righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 
This form of expression, of course precludes the construc- 
tion which some have been disposed to put on the passage, 
in order to evade its force, viz. that it implies that the king- 
dom of heaven is made up of such as resemble little chil- 
dren in spirit. We might just as well say that the kingdom 
of heaven does not belong to those who are " poor in 
spirit,' 5 but only to those who resemble them ; or that it 
does not belong to those who are " persecuted for righte- 
ousness' sake/' but only to those who manifest a similar 



178 INFANT BAPTISM. 

temper. Our Lord's language undoubtedly meant that the 
kingdom of heaven was really theirs of whom he spake ^ 
that it belonged to them ; that they are heirs of it, just as 
the " poor in spirit" and the " persecuted for righteous- 
ness' sake, are themselves connected in spirit, and in prom- 
ise with that kingdom.*' See Miller on Bap. p. 18. 

The kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish nation 
because they rejected the Messiah, and given to the be- 
lieving Gentiles. That the kingdom of God which was ta- 
ken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, denotes the 
Jewish church dispensation, is certain ; and it is equally 
certain that infants belonged to the kingdom of God which 
was taken from the Jews. The language of our Lord 
then, amounts to this " Suffer little children to come unto 
me ; they still belong to my kingdom, or church, and con- 
sequently sustain an important relation to me." This 
would be intelligible and satisfactory, and a sufficient rea- 
son why infants should be brought to Christ to receive his 
blessing ; it would have met the wishes of every pious 
heart, and accorded with the original charter of the church 
of God — God's everlasting covenant with believers and 
their seed. 

But says the objector, " If infants belong to the kingdom 
of God, and must therefore be baptized ; why not baptize 
all infants 1" answer: we will, provided parents will con- 
sent, and solemnly covenant to "bring them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord," as did Abraham ; 
and as do believers now, who intelligently bring their chil- 
dren to Christ and consecrate them to him in baptism. 

Reader : the Saviour was " much displeased y with those 
who rebuked parents for bringing their children to our 
Lord ! Is that Saviour displeased with parents now who 
bring their children and consecrate them unto him by the 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 179 

washing of water in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Has that Christ, who " took 
little children up in his arms" and said " suffer them to 
come unto me and forhid them not," finally cast them out 
of his church ; and denied them that rite which signifies 
moral cleansing through the efficacy of his own blood, 
and by the Spirit of God ? We have never so learned Christ, 
neither do such conclusions accord with the genius of our 
Christianity. 

Children Holy. 

1 Cor. 7 : 14 — " For the unbelieving husband is sancti- 
fied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by 
the husband : else were your children unclean ; but now 
are they holy." 

This text seems to assign a reason why the children of 
God's people belong to the kingdom of God — they are 
holy children, or in the language of the Old Testament a 
"holy seed." The text does notlteach that the children 
of believers are morally pure ; but relatively holy. The 
meaning is simply this, " If only one of the parents 
believes, it so sanctifies the family relation, that the chil- 
dren are holy, i. e. proper subjects to be consecrated to 
God in covenant relation, as were the seed of Abraham." 
This exposition is easy and natural ; is agreeable to the 
spirit and design of the original constitution of the church, 
and accords with the sentiments of the Fathers who flour- 
ished immediately after the apostles. While the exposition 
of our opponents is contradictory, and absurd, as we shall 
undertake to show. The reader shall now have a speci- 
men of the logic of great men in a pinch. We will begin 
with the learned, confident Dr. Carson, whose manner of 
affirming is very conclusive, however faulty his logic, 
16* 



ISO INFANT BAPTISM. 

Dr. Carson says " with respect to the passage referred to (i Cor. 
7 : 14) it is usually and sufficiently explained, by an allusion to Ez- 
ra 10 : 3. 44— Neh. 13 : 23, 24. The sanctification referred to, must 
be legitimacy according to the laic of God." p. 333. 

Dr. Gill says, the parties spoken of, " Are duly, rightly, and le- 
gally espoused to each other ; — otherwise, that is, if they are not tru- 
ly married to each other, the children must be spurious, and not le- 
gitimate, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy ; this 
is, if the marriage contract between them was not valid, and if since 
the conversion of one of them, it can never be thought to be good ; 
then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, 
or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, 
base-born, and not a genuine, legitimate offspring; but as the pa- 
rents are lawfully married, the children born of them are in a civil 
and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate." Wood on Bap. p. 83. 

Pengilly, " Scripture Guide," p. 41, 50, explained the 
text as does Drs. Carson and Gill, and professes to quote 
Abram Booth in support of the same opinion. 

In looking at the labored results of these learned Drs. y 
we confess the remark of Elihu appears peculiarly perti- 
nent ; "Great men are not always wise." Reader, does 
lawful marriage constitute "holy children?" Or is it neces- 
sary that one parent should believe in Christ to constitute 
children legitimate, " lawfully begotten?" Did Paul under- 
take to teach the profound doctrine, that where the husband 
or wife believed, their marriage was lawful ? That children 
born under such circumstances were not bastards ! ! But 
that our reader may see the utter inconsistency of the ex- 
position given by our opponents ; that it has neither scrip- 
ture, logic, nor criticism to support it ; we will introduce 
a few simple facts. 

1. " Else were your children unclean, but now are they 
holy" By "unclean" according to our opponents we 
must understand illegitimate, i. e. bastards ; and by " holy" 
legitimate — " lawfully begotten" Now the word for bas- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 181 

tards is nodos ; and for legitimate gnesios, neither of 
which is used in the text ; but agia. holy, elsewhere saints 
i. e. devoted to God. This word is never used for legiti- 
mate. It was a common title by which the apostle desig- 
nated those who were consecrated to God and in covenant 
relation with his church. 1 Cor. 1 : 2, " To them that 
are sanctified (set apart) in Christ Jesus called to be 
saints ;" Eph. 1:1," To the saints which are at Ephesus. 5 ' 
Col. 1 : 2, " To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ." 
Now what sense would it make to render the word saiiit, 
or saints " legitimate ;" and still it comes from agios. The 
inconsistency of our opponents appears in the argument of 
their great champion, Mr. Tombes, who held a discussion 
with Mr. Baxter in 1649. 

In the report Mr. Baxter says " You yielded that the 
word sanctify and holy, is taken in my sense near 600 
times in scripture, and no where else once in your sense ; 
and yet pleaded that here (1 Cor. 7 : 14) it must be taken 
in yours, and not in mine, without showing any ground 
for a necessity of it." Baxter's Report, p. 208, quoted by 
McCalla, p. 303. It certainly shows some decision, to 
say a bible word means so and so, and stick to it, al- 
though there is not an example on record ! ! Such oppo- 
nents are hard to convince. 

2. The words clean and holy most certainly do describe 
that which is, or may be consecrated to God ; and are al- 
most always, if not exclusively employed to denote such a 
relation or use, when used in a religious sense. Let our 
opponents furnish the Jirst example to the contrary. 

" Every thing dedicated to God is styled holy, as the 
temple, the offerings, the vessels of the sanctuary, and the 
people in covenant. Not because they are all regenerated ; 



182 INFANT BAPTISM. 

but because they stand in a visible covenant relation to an 
holy God." Clinton on Bap. p. 42. Says Dr. Doddridge : 

" On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this text 
(1 Cor. 7 : 14) 1 must judge it to refer to ivfant baptism. Nothing- 
can be more apparent than that the word holy, signifies persons who 
might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's 
people. Compare Ex. 19 : 6— Deut. 7 : 6—14 : 2—26 : 19—33: 
3— Ezra 9 : 2— Is. 35 : 8—52 : 1— Acts 10 : 23. And as to the inter- 
pretation which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, have conten- 
ded for, that holy signifies legitimate and unclean, illegitimate (not 
to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of the word) nothing 
can be more evident, than that the argument will by no means bear 
it ; for it would be proving a thing by itself, idem per idem, to argue 
that the converse of the parent was lawful because the children were 
not bastards ; whereas all who thought the converse of the parents 
unlawful, must of course think that the children were illegitimate." 
See Com. 

3. But what seems to settle this point, is the fact, that 
the children of such parents are distinguished by the very 
name that distinguishes such adults as are in covenant re- 
lation with the church. " Else were your children un- 
clean, but now are they holy" Mr. Clinton observes 
" The word holy, is never applied in the scriptures to any 
person out of covenant, and destitute of the covenant seal. 
.... The term holy is appropriated to persons visibly in 
covenant, is applied directly to them, but not to any others." 
page 45. The Israelites were denominated " a holy peo- 
ple" because in covenant with God ; their first born holy 
to the Lord; and their entire offspring iC a holy seed," and 
as Whitby argues : 

" If the holy seed among the Jews were to be circumcised, and be 
made federally holy by receiving the sign of the covenant and being 
admitted into the number of God's people, because they were born 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 18 3 

in sanctity, or were seminally holy ; for the root being holy so are 
the branches ; then, by like reason, the holy seed of christians ought 
to be admitted to baptism, the sign of the christian covenant, and so 
to be entered into the society of the christian church." 

In Ridgiey Divinity, I find the following note : Tertullion observes 
on this passage, ( 1 Cor. 7: 14 ) that if either parent were christians, 
the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early baptism. And 
it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul. For, having 
declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be divorced accord- 
ing to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be unclean : he 
pronounces the unbeliever set apart by such marriage to God, as far 
as regarded that marriage ; and in proof of this he refers to a fact as 
known to the Corinthians, namely, that the children of such mar- 
riages were received into the church, and treated as holy, that is, de- 
voted to God. INow if the children of such marriage were not 
treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in 
no other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no 
doubt, that this was the case w 7 hen both parents were believers." 
Vol. 4, p. 196. 

We might refer our reader to the opinions of the an- 
cients, Fathers of the church, as being in accordance with 
the exposition we have given of 1 Cor. 7 : 14 ; but it is un- 
necessary ; if any doubt, let such consult Wall, Vol. 1, p. 
95, 181, 342 — 6, &c. It has always been a matter of sur- 
prise to us, that an exposition so natural and easy, and 
urged both by the precepts and examples of Old and New 
Testament, should meet with opposition from any source. 
The covenant relation of children based upon the faith of 
parents, is a doctrine as old as the constitution of the 
Abrahamic church : and this is the doctrine advocated by 
the apostle in this place. In confidence we now submit it 
to the candor and good sense of our reader, with the evi- 
dence before him : whether children, denominated by the 
apostle " clean" and " holy" belonged to the " kingdom 
of heaven'* on earth, or visible church ; and consequent-* 



184 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ly were entitled to the rite of initiation ; or whether by 
" holy," we are simply to understand " legitimate;" when 
out of more than 600 examples of the use of the word 
" holy," legitimate is never once given as the meaning of 
the word " holy ;" but as Barkit well observes, " Is al- 
ways used for a state of separation to God." 

Household Baptism. 

The inquiry is frequently raised, "If infant baptism is 
a doctrine of the New Testament, why is not more said 
about it ; and why are not examples of the practice more 
numerous?" We reply, long established customs are sel- 
dom mentioned in history, unless incidentally in connec- 
tion with other things. There are periods in the history 
of the Jews, of more than 500 years, when circumcision is 
not once mentioned, nor an example given ; are we hence 
to infer that circumcision was not practiced during this 
long silence? There are intervals of more than 100 years 
when the sabbath is not named ! Had it been blotted from 
the Statute Book of heaven ? There was no occasion for 
speaking of circumcision, or the sabbath ; and there cer- 
tainly was no necessity for noticing the fact of their exis- 
tence. The same is true of infant baptism. Had there 
been any material change in the covenant relation of chil- 
dren, no doubt such change would have been made con- 
spicuous, as was the fulfillment of the ceremonial dispensa- 
tion, and the institution of the gospel system. But as chil- 
dren had always sustained a covenant relation with the 
church, and continued to sustain that relation under the 
gospel dispensation, there was no occasion for mention- 
ing infant baptism, as a fact, any more than there is occa- 
sion for speaking of the 4th of July, to an intelligent 
American, as a historical fact. When our Baptist brethren 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 185 

administer baptism, it is unnecessary to add, that it was 
on " profession of faith ;" that is a matter of course. 
When Pedobaptists speak of administering the rite to 
" households, " is it necessary to say " children were in- 
cluded V 9 By no means, that is implied. So of the apos- 
tles ; they practiced according to the constitution of the 
church, which provided for infant church membership, as 
we have already shown. 

But we deny that the New Testament is without pre- 
cept and example for infant baptism ; or that, compared 
with the general history of baptism, it is even seldom 
brought to view by inspired writers. We claim that exam- 
ples of " household baptism" are common in connection 
with the reported labors of the apostles. Paul w r as the 
apostle to the Gentiles. Now, if the reader will take his 
bible and count, he will find, that all the distinct cases of 
baptism recorded in the New Testament do not exceed ten. 
Pengilly numbers only 18 places, when commenting upon 
all those texts, or portions of scripture which relate to 
baptism. Now it is a singular fact, that out of the ten dis- 
tinct cases on record, six belong to the ministry of Paul, 
and three out of the six are " household baptisms :" and 
what is still more remarkable, the examples given, are 
mentioned incidentally, as common occurrences, and not 
as extraordinary, or out of the common course. In fact, 
had it not been for the baptism of Lydia, we should have 
never known that she had a " household ;" because these 
words include every syllable that relates to her family : 
Acts 16 : 15, " And when she was baptized, and her house- 
hold^j&Lc. Of the jailor it is simply said, " He was bap- 
tized and all his ; }> thus briefly adverting to the fact, as a 
customary thing. Had it not been for party strife at Cor- 
inth, no mention would have been made of the baptism of 



186 INFANT BAPTISM. 

the " household of Stephanas ;" 1 Cor. 14—16. Now, if 
in six recorded examples of baptism, connected with the 
ministry of Paul, we find three cases of " household bap- 
tism," and those mentioned in this incidental manner, the 
inference seems just, and unavoidable, that a multitude of 
like cases were passed over in silence, since it was not the 
object of the inspired writers to minute examples of infant 
baptism — they merely alluded to the fact when connected 
with some other important matter. 

But our opponents roundly deny that these examples of 
" household baptism/' have any thing to do with infant 
baptism ; hence a somewhat critical examination of these 
cases is demanded. That our position should be denied 
by our opponents, is by no means strange. Indeed, as we 
have already shown, self-preservation requires it. See p. 
155. But a denial proves nothing — every important doc- 
trine of the bible has been denied, and still maintained 
with unshaken confidence. But to the candid reader we 
say, let these examples, fairly interpreted speak for them- 
selves. Our position is this : the language and circum- 
stances, explained according to all just rules of interpreta- 
tion, prove the practice of infant baptism. 

Lydia and Household. 

1. We will take a view of the simple facts and cir- 
cumstances, without going into a critical examination of 
words. Our criticisms upon certain words in the text, 
shall be our corroborating testimony abundantly confirm- 
ing our position, and our explanation of the " facts and cir- 
cumstances. " We will begin with the case of Lydia and 
her household. Acts 16: 14, 15 : " And a certain wo- 
man named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city ofThya- 
tira, which worshiped God, heard us : whose heart the 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 187 

Lord opened that she attended unto the things which 
were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, 
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have 
judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, 
and abide there : and she constrained us." 

Here then we find all that relates to the conversion, 
and baptism of Lydia, and her household. That her 
" household" were really baptized, our opponents will not 
deny ; and that the word, " household" frequently denotes 
a family, they also admit. So far then we agree. But 
did Lydia's household believe before they were baptized ; 
is the question at issue 1 Our opponents affirm that Lydia's 
baptized household were believers and were baptized upon 
the profession of their own faith: while we maintain that 
there is not one syllable to prove that a single subject of 
baptism believed, except Lydia ; and that her faith was 
the foundation of the baptism of her household. 

The argument of our opponents consists of two parts. 
In the first place, they tell us what we can't prove : and 
secondly, they attempt to prove that Lydia's household 
were all believers, " brethren" We will give the substance 
of their argument from the famous u R. Pengilly," 
whose work is published and endorsed by the " Baptist 
General Tract Society, Philadelphia :" and whose argu- 
ment is in fact the common argument of all their great 
men. Scrip. Guide, p. 28, 29. 

Mr. Pengilly says, that there " Are four things which 
a Pedobaptist must take for granted, before he can urge 
this place in his favor ; but if he can prove none of them, 
his argument is good for nothing. 1. That Lydia had, at 
this time, or lately an husband. 2. That she had chil- 
dren, and children then in infancy, or under the years of 

17 



188 INFANT BAPTISM. 

understanding. 3. That these children were with her at 
Philippi. 4. That such children were really baptized." 

This same mode of reasoning we will now apply to our 
opponents. They admit that Lydia's " household" was 
baptized ; and that the word " household," frequently de- 
notes a family ; now as nothing is said about the faith Of 
her " household," we call upon our opponents to show ; 
1. That Lydia had no children. 2. Or, if she had, 
that there were no infants among them. 3. Or that she 
had not brought them with her to Philippi. 4. Or, that 
if with her, any of them believed. Should they assume 
that Lydia's servants constituted her " household," then 
we ask for the proof, not only that she had servants, but 
that they were converted. The inspired writer affirms 
that her " household" were baptized ; but nothing is said 
about their believing. In fact, the manner of recording 
her conversion and baptism, proves that Lydia was the on- 
ly believer connected with the " household." Look at the 
text. " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
purple of the city of Thyatira, who (Lydia) worshiped 
God, heard us ; whose (Lydia's) heart the Lord opened 
that she attended to the things which were spoken of 
Paul." Now according to our opponents, it should have 
read thus, " They heard us — their hearts were opened — 
they attended to the things which were spoken of Paul :" 
and when Lydia said, " If ye have judged me faithful," it 
should have been " If ye have judged us faithful." But 
instead of the plural, Lydia only is alluded to ; and we 
should have never known that she had a household, had 
not her baptism been mentioned. Would an impartial his- 
torian so minutely state all the facts and circumstances in 
the conversion of Lydia, and then pass over the conver- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 189 

sion of her whole household in perfect silence ! ! Was the 
simple fact of their baptism more important than the fact 
of their conversion ! ! ! Let the candid judge. 

Secondly : But our opponents attempt to prove that the 
household of Lydia were all believers : we will now look 
at the argument to prove it. Mr. Pengilly says, p. 28, 
" Paul and Silas being delivered from prison, went into the 
house of Lydia, and here, undoubtedly, they found her 
' household/ that they had baptized : having entered, we 
read, (verse 40) they saw THE BRETHREN, and 
COMFORTED THEM.— Lydia's household, therefore, 
being called 4 brethren' and capable of being ' comfort- 
ed' by the word, must have been adults, and not infant 
children." To our mind, this argument is almost too 
weak, to claim serious attention. Look at the passage ; 
:: And they went out of the prison, and entered into the 
house of Lydia : and when they had seen the brethren, 
they comforted them and departed." Did not Mr. Pen- 
gilly know that Luke and Timothy were with Paul and 
Silas at Philippic When Luke, the writer says "She 
(Lydia) constrained us" to abide in her house : does it 
not prove that they did abide there ? Yes : " they comfort- 
ed the brethren" — nothing said about the sisters — not even 
Lydia, whose hospitality they enjoyed. But suppose we 
should exclude Luke and Timothy and say somebody else 
is meant : were there no disciples who would take the 
trouble to call at Lydia's house and see Paul and Silas be- 
fore their departure ? We should consider it rather cold 
treatment, to go into a place — preach the gospel — be 
scourged and imprisoned for preaching ; and when set at 
liberty, leave the town without so much as a friendly call 
from the ^brethren." The language, 'And when they 



190 INFANT BAPTISM. 

had seen the brethren implies, not a " household, 5 ' but 
the brethren at Philippi, who sympathized in their suf- 
fering — Luke, Timothy, the Jailer, and any others. 

But our opponents insist that there is no evidence that 
Lydia had any children — that her baptized " household" 
were converted " brethren." Indeed, had the word 
" household" been rendered " family," or "children," 
there would have been little room for controversy. Now it 
is a singular fact, that the Venerable Peshito-Syriac version, 
and the Coptic, read ; " And when she was baptized with 
her children." See Hall on Bap. Errors, p. 76. How 
far this Ancient "Peshito-Syriac" version is entitled to 
confidence, as also the Coptic, is a matter of some impor- 
tance. First, what say our opponents. 

Rev. Willard Judd, the Reviewer of Prof. M. Stuart of 
Andover, says " The old Syriac, or Peshito (version) is ac- 
knowledged to be the most ancient as well as one of the 
most accurate versions of the New Testament. It was 
made at least as early as the beginning of the second cen- 
tury, in the very country where the apostles lived and 
wrote, and where both the Syriac and the Greek were 
constantly used, and perfectly understood. Of course it 
was executed by those who understood and spoke both lan- 
guages precisely as the sacred writers themselves under- 
stood and spoke them." Judd's Review, p. 163, 164. 

The " Bible Question" published by the Baptist Bible 
Society says, " The Peshito-Syriac version is generally 
referred to the beginning of the second century : by some 
critics, even to the close of the first. " Again, " It is con- 
sidered to be the earliest version extant : the language dif- 
fers, probably, very little from that spoken by our Lord 
and his disciples." See Bib. Question, p. 121. The Rev. 
J. J. Woolsey considers the Peshito version, " the very 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 191 

best that ever has been made/ 5 and is in doubt whether it 
11 be the work of an inspired apostle or not." Hall Bap. Er. 
p. 76. Thus speak our Baptist brethren, and the Baptist 
Bible Society for the ancient Peshito version, when plead- 
ing for immersion. We concede all the worth and antiq- 
uity that they claim for this excellent version, which pos- 
sibly is even older than the book of Revelation, and may 
" be the work of an inspired apostle." 

But then, what become of " Lydia's servants" — the 
" brethren" who constituted her " household ?" this version 
declares that " she was baptized zoith her children." The 
Coptic version, which some maintain, is as old as the sec- 
ond century, declares the same — " She was baptized with 
her children." Now, will our opponents impeach their 
own witness, even after endorsing his character for compe- 
tency and veracity, because he testifies against them 1 or will 
they rather give up all their guess ivork about Lydia being 
" unmarried" — " keeping a number of servants who were 
converted" — " the brethren comforted were her household" 
&c. Let our reader decide which is due to candor, and 
christian controversy ; while we consider the case of the 
Jailer. 

The Jailer and Family. 

The conversion of Lydia seems to have led to the con- 
version of the Jailer. The history of his conversion we 
give in the language of the inspired writer. Acts 16 : 25 
— 34. " And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang 
praises unto God ; and the prisoners heard them. And 
suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foun- 
dations of the prison were shaken : and immediately all 
the doors were opened and every one's bands were loosed. 
And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, 
17* 



192 INFANT BAPTISM. 

and seeing the prison-doors open ; he drew out his 
sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the 
prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, 
saying, do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then he 
called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and 
fell down before Paul and Silas ; and brought them out, 
and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved 1 And they 
said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt 
be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the 
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And 
he took them the same hour of the night and washed 
their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
way. And when he had brought them into his house, he 
set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with 
all his house." Here then, we have all the facts and cir- 
cumstances connected with the conversion of the Jailer, 
his baptism, and that of his household. Now let us con- 
sider, in the spirit of honest inquiry, the evidence for and 
against infant baptism, derived from this example. 

1. We claim that the Jailer had a family ; — that his 
family embraced young children. That he had a family, 
our opponents do not deny. See Pengilly, p. 30. But 
that he had a family, which embraced young children, is 
evident ; First, from Paul's answer to his question, 
" What must I do to be saved ? Believe on the Lord Je- 
sus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house" But 
would the apostle have promised salvation to his house, 
upon the condition of his faith, if servants constituted his 
house, or family ; or even if his children were of sufficient 
age to act for themselves ? Does not the promise seem to 
be limited to such parents, as are training up infant off- 
spring " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord f- 
But, in the second place, the conduct of the Jailer upon 



New testament argument. 193 

this occasion, shows that he was comparatively a young 
man, and consequently had a family which embraced 
young children. We read " He called for a light, and 
sprang in," which denotes too much activity for an old 
man. Again ; " He drew his sword and was about to kill 
himself." This looks more like the rash, hasty decision 
of young men, than the deliberation and coolness charac- 
teristic of age. Third: It is unreasonable to suppose, 
that the care and labor of a prison would be imposed upon 
any but an able and efficient man ; such as would be found 
among the young and vigorous. 

2. We argue the baptism of the Jailer's children from 
the character of the promise made to him. The promise 
is peculiarly Abrahamic in its character ; " I will be a God 
unto thee and to thy seed after thee." So in Luke 19 : 9. 
" This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as 
he also is a son of Abraham ." Peter, on the day of Pente- 
cost calls upon his anxious hearers to repent and be bap- 
tized, and adds " For the promise is unto you, and to your 
children." And to the Jailer, Paul says, " Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" 
Now we affirm that the same covenant, which united pa- 
rents and children in the promises, also united them in 
the rite whereby they entered into covenant with God. 
This accords with the preaching and practice of the apos- 
tle in the case of the Jailer ; he first preached tC Believe . . . 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ;" and then bap- 
tized him and all his house. 

3. We believe that the children of the Jailer were bap- 
tized, because it is expressely said, " he was baptized, 
and all his, straightway." Now if " all his" were imme- 
diately baptized, then his children were among the num- 



104 INFANT BAPTISM, 

ber. The promise was also to his M house." and his kk housi 
is also united with him in baptism, 

-I. There is nothing on record to prove that his chil- 
dren were concerted, and consequently baptized upon the 

profession of their own faith : but all the facts and circum- 
stances prove that they were baptized upon the faith of the 
parent. Look at the facts: " m:" asked " What must I 
do to be saveil." — M HE believed," — u tir, rejoiced." — M BE 
was baptized, and all his." Dr. Pond says " It is certain 
from the Greek, as every one acquainted with the language 
must perceive, that the believing and rejoicing here spo- 
ken oi\ being in the singular number, can refer to the Jail- 
er on y." Page 96, 

Let us now consider the objections of our opponents to 
this view of the subject. To meet our argument, two ob- 
jections are urged by lYugilly, which comprise, we believe 
all that our Opponents Can glean from the case of the Jail- 
er wherewith to oppose infant baptism. For the ben- 
efit o( our opponents we will quote Mr, Pengilly's argu- 
ment — italics and capitals. 

l. " We may next loam, from the text, m the most satisfactory 
manner, o( what the Jailor's household consisted ; that they were 
not infants, or persons so young as to bo incapable of being taught 
the gospel, and of believing it ; lor thus we read, ver, 39, M I 
spahc unto kirn the word of the lord, lnd roALL ruAT wkri m his 
house*" These two or three words from the pen of inspiration, de- 
cide the controversy. This household is instructed, am. ; therefore 
infants could not be included, 

'J. ii St. Luke farther describes the Jailor and his household, and 
shows thereby, how the lord's commission was still strictly obeyed, 
Paul and Silas tirst preached the gospel to the whole house, as ob- 
served above ; and now we road, ver. 34, the Jailor . BE- 

LIEVING ix GOD with ALL his HOUSE, Thou it follows he had 
no infant children/' Bee Pengilly's Guide, p, 30. 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 195 

So much for objections, so convincing and conclusive, 
in the estimation o( Mr. Pengilly, the Oracle of the u Bap- 
tist General Tract Society,' 5 that with apparent triumph, 
he affirms, " These two or threi words from thr pen of in- 
spiration decide the controversy" Yes ; Mr, Pengilly, but 
which way do " these two or three words" . . decide it ! We 
fully concur thus far, " two or three words from the pen of 
inspiration," m this very text quoted by our opponents to 
disapprove infant baptism, considered in their proper con- 
nection, ought forever to decide the controversy ; but not 
as Mr. Pengilly decides it. 

Candid render ; let us now consider lt These two or 
three words from the pen of inspiration," in their proper 
connection with the whole subject. First, it is said 
" And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to 
all that were in his house." Yes, reader; mark well the 
language ! It don't say v> They spake the word of the Lord 
to a// his,' 3 or " to his house :" but " to all that were in his 
house:" i. e. they preached to all that were present with 
him. 1 Fence, when the Jailer's children are intended, we 
read ; " Believe . . . and thou shall be saved, and thy house. 
— And was baptized, he and all his" i. e. all his house. 
But when others are intended — whether prisoners, domes- 
tics, or both ; this peculiar phrase is not employed : then 
we read, " And they spake the word of the Lord ... to all 
that were ill his house," or present with him at the time 
and place. The very form of expression, " all that were 
in his house " compared with the phrase " his house" — the 
latter being uniformly employed in both Old and New 
Testament to denote the family, — embracing children ; 
proves beyond all doubt to our mind : that by the former, 
we are to understand persons with him, but not his family 
in the proper sense ; while the phrase " his house" and 



196 INFANT BAPTISM. 

** all his" denotes his children. When our opponents can 
find the first example, in all the bible, where the former 
is used to denote the children of the house, then we will 
allow that it may have such meaning in this place. 

That our view, is the correct one, will appear from a 
careful examination of the facts presented by the inspired 
writer. First, In connection with the earthquake, ver. 
26, we read u Immediately all the doors ivere opened, and 
every one's bands were loosed" Hence the prisoners were 
loosed, and at liberty to go where they pleased about the 
prison. Second, in ver. 30, 31, it is said that the Jailer 
" called for a light and sprang in" and " brought them out," 
i. e. out of the 4 ' inner prison," where he had thrust them. 
The next verse 32, informs us that " they spake unto him 
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house/' 
or with him in that part of the building, into which he 
brought them, when he brought them out of the " inner 
prison." But that his family abode is not intended by the 
word •• house" in this place, is certain, from the fact stated 
in the 34th ver. " And when he had brought them into 
his house, he set meat before them, &c." Hence those to 
whom they " spake the word of the Lord" were not at the 
time in that house into which Paul and Silas were brought 
when meat was set before them. This will appear still 
more conclusive, when we come to show that the inspired 
writer has employed in the original, two different words, 
although their peculiar significancy is lost in consequence 
of translating both " house," without marking their dis- 
tinct meaning. 

The view we have presented, is not only supported by 
all the facts recorded ; but all the probabilities in the case 
go to confirm the same opinion. Let our reader imagine 
the interest felt on that occasion,by the prisoners — the earth 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 197 

quaking — their bands suddenly unloosed, and their doors 
unbarred by an invisible power ; the alarmed Jailer springs 
in with a light, and imploringly asks, " Sirs, what must 
I do to be saved." Would not every prisoner, urged by fear 
and anxiety, hasten to the light, and listen with solemn in- 
terest to those wonderful men, whose prayers, and mid- 
night songs of praise to God, had already excited their at- 
tention 1 Would not Paul and Silas immediately — without 
leaving the spot, preach the same salvation to them, which 
they had just offered to the trembling Jailer 1 These same 
prisoners then, were the individuals to whom " they spake 
the word of the Lord :" and the " house," which they 
were in when they heard the " word of the Lord," was a 
part of the prison premises — the place where the anxious 
Jailer received an answer to the inquiry, " What must I 
do to be saved :" while the " house" into which the Jailer 
brought Paul and Silas after " they spake the word of the 
Lord unto him" and those with him, was the family res- 
idence, where refreshment was at hand ; so that " he set 
meat before them." If our opponents insist, that they are 
in the family residence, where the Jailer " and his house" 
dwelt, when Paul and Silas spake the word of the Lord to 
all ; then into what " house" were they brought, when re- 
freshment was given ? 

Second : But our opponents claim that all the Jailer's 
house believed, because it is said he " rejoiced, believing in 
God with all his house." There are two answers to this 
objection, either of which prove that the objection rests 
upon a very slender foundation. 1. Should we admit the 
present rendering of the text — that it is correct — the very 
best translation of the Greek ; even then it proves nothing 
conclusively. When Joshua declares, " As for me and 
my house, ive will serve the Lord" does it prove that Josh- 



193 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ua had no infant children in his family, because all were 
pledged to the service of God ? When Peter restored En- 
eas, Acts 9 : 35, it is said, " All that dwelt in Lydda and 
Saron saw him and turned to the Lord." There could 
have been no infants, therefore in Lydda and Saron, be- 
cause " all turned to the Lord ;" which infants were in- 
capable of doing ! Should a pastor visit a family, and re- 
port to his people, that the family were all glad to see him ; 
that he conversed and prayed with all the house ; would 
his people necessarily conclude that there were no infants in 
the family ; because infants could neither rejoice nor con- 
verse ? When ii is said that a family worships in a certain 
church, does it prove that there are no infant children in 
such family ; because infants are incapable of worshiping 
any where. Surely a literalist, so literal would make a 
sorry exposition of God's revelation. 2. But let the read- 
er consider the text translated as it should be : " He re- 
joiced through all his house, having believed in God." See 
Scott's Com. : Also Henry. Or as some render the pas- 
sage, " He rejoiced domestically, having believed in God." 
Dr. Pond observes, " If there is an ambiguity in this Eng- 
lish phrase, there is none in the original. It is certain 
from the Greek, as every one acquainted with the language 
must perceive, that the believing and rejoicing here spoken 
of, being in the singular number, can refer to the Jailer 
only," p. 96. The word translated house — " with all his 
house" is panoiki, an adverb, and properly signifies do- 
mestically, and describes the manner of his rejoicing : as 
Henry remarks, " He, believing in God, rejoiced all the 
house over ; he went to every apartment, expressing his 
joy." That he should pass through different rooms, in 
arranging and preparing refreshment for Paul and Silas, 
and rejoice as he went, would by no means be a singular 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 199 

circumstance : the transition from trembling anxietv and 
alarm, to joyful hope inspired by confidence in the living 
Redeemer, would produce such results. But why should 
the inspired historian so minutely record the facts, He 
asked, what must / do to be saved — " he rejoiced' 7 — 
'' he believed," and pass over the still more important fact, 
if, as our opponents claim, it be a fact, that his ivhole 
house were converted to God the same hour ! ! One thing 
is certain ; if the inspired writers were opposed to infant 
baptism, their manner of expressing it was exceedingly 
unfortunate for the cause of truth ; since their recorded 
examples of household baptism have gone to support the 
doctrine of infant baptism in every age. Our opponents 
would make few converts to their system by simply pursu- 
ing the same course. 

Household of Stephanas. 

The next example of household baptism which we will 
consider, is recorded, ] Cor. 1 : 16 — " I baptized also the 
household of Stephanas." The history of this example is 
so brief and abrupt, that little opportunity is afforded for 
a labored argument in opposition to the baptism of chil- 
dren. Still our opponents are not without an objection, 
and accordingly point us to 1 Cor. 16 : 15, " Ye know 
the house of Stephanas that it is the first-fruits of Acha- 
ia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry 
of the saints." But let our reader remember that the 
" household of Stephanas" had been baptized a number 
of years before Paul wrote to the Corinthians ; so that un- 
der the faithful training of a godly parent they might have 
been all converted after their baptism. To our mind the 
text decidedly favors this idea: — " Ye know the house of 
Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that 

18 



'200 INFANT BAPTISM. 

they have (since) addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
saints." As if the writer had said, " Since the household 
of Stephanas were baptized, they have been converted, 
and are now useful in administering to the wants of the 
saints. " The very manner of speaking of them indicates 
that some change had occurred in the household of Ste- 
phanas, since Paul visited Corinth and baptized Stephanas 
and his family ; and that change was so important that the 
apostle calls particular attention to the fact in concluding 
his epistle to the church. In this connection, we offer no 
criticism upon the words " household" and " house," as 
used in the first chapter and 16th verse, but conclude with 
an extract from Taylor's " Facts and Evidences," p. 55. 

" By the apostle's reproof of a party spirit among the 
Corinthians, we learn, incidentally and unexpectedly, the 
baptism of the family of Stephanas. The Apostle was not 
discussing the subject of baptism, but was intent on sup- 
pressing party. Having censured this disposition, he 
takes occasion to thank God, that his party, the Paulists, 
was so few ! for how many did it consist of in the Corinth- 
ian church ? Only two, Crispus and Gaius. 1 Cor. 1 : 14 
— 16, ' I thank God that I baptized none of you, Corinth- 
ian church-members, except Crispus and Gaius ; lest 
any should say that I had baptized in my own name, and 
so had formed a party among your church. However, I 
did baptize also the family of Stephanas;' but, they are 
out of the question, as they cannot support any party. 
Besides, or as to the rest of families, / do not recollect that 
I baptized any other family : — but if I did, they also are 
out of the question ; since they also cannot support any 
party in the church." 

With these examples of household baptism before the 
reader, let him also bear in mind that the apostles were 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 201 

Jews by birth, education and religion : that their church 
had always been accustomed to receive u households" 
with the head of the family, by a religious rite, into cove- 
nant relation with the church ; and what then are we to 
inter from the record, when a Jewish inspired historian in- 
forms us, that, under the commission, " Go ye therefore 
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" these 
same Jewish teachers did go, and whenever the head of the 
family was converted to God, they immediately baptized 
him, M and all his," or - ■ her household." Let our oppo- 
nents furnish the first example from apostolic practice, 
where the believing parent was baptized, while his, or her 
children were not. But how comes it to pass that the bap. 
tism of the household, always follows the baptism of the 
head of the family, if these ministers of Christ did not prac- 
tice after the customs of the Abrahamic church, i. e. first 
proselyte the parent, and then receive into covenant rela- 
tion with the church, both the head of the family and his 
household by the same rite of initiation. In this respect, 
the facts on record connected with the labors of the apos- 
tles precisely correspond with the practice of Pedobaptist^ 
now. Were the history, or journal of a missionary pub- 
lished, in which occasional mention of " household bap- 
tism" occurred, no one would ever think of questioning 
his belief in infant baptism ; — such facts would be regard- 
ed as conclusive evidence that he was a Pedobaptist. But 
do we read of the baptism of households among our bap- 
tist brethren ! Did a Baptist elder ever record such a fact 
as this ; " I baptized Mr. B. and his household, or all his ?'' 
Why not, if the practice of our opponents corresponds 
with that of the apostles ! Strange indeed, that out of nine 
cases of baptism reported in connection with the labors of 



202 INFANT BAPTISM. 

the apostles, there should be three examples of household 
baptism ; while out of thousands of cases among our op- 
ponents, not a single example occurs ; and still they claim 
to be the true visible, apostolic church, following the in- 
spired word and example of our Divine Lord and his apos- 
tles. We submit it to the candid. 

Oikos and Oikia. 

Before dismissing these examples of household baptism, 
we wish to call attention to the Greek words rendered 
" house" and " houshold" by the translators. We intend 
to show that the sacred historian has employed words, in 
speaking of the baptism of households, which in their strict 
and most literal signification imply, that those households 
embraced children, and that they were consequently bap- 
tized. 

The inspired writers make use of two words, oikos and 
oikia, which are very generally translated house and house- 
hold, in our common English version. Oikos is the 
proper word for house, in the sense of a family embracing 
children, and is always employed, when the inspired wri- 
ters speak of the baptism of households. But oikia is more 
general in its meaning, and includes the premises at large 
— servants and all that pertains to a household. On this 
subject Mr. Taylor observes " The Greek term for house, 
oikos, corresponds exactly with our use of the English word ; and 
the distinctions are uniformly preserved throughout scripture, with- 
out any instance of confusion or interchange. As applied to per- 
sons, this Greek term signifies a continued descending line of man}- 
generations. So we have the house of Israel, and the house of Da- 
vid, the nearest line by consanguinity that can be drawn to Israel, to 
David through an indefinite number of generations. It signifies also 
a family living at the same time, and usually under one roof, contem- 
poraries. With the addition of a syllable, oiki-AS, it changes its 
application, and imports the attendants on a family, the servants of 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 203 

Virions kinds, or the /uw^-hold ; whoever holds to the house. Mar- 
riage or adoption might engraft a member of the house-hold (oikia) 
into the family (oikos) ; yet that is not according to the appointment 
of nature, but is an arbitrary convention of civil society. 

The term house, in the sense of a building, or as signifying a se- 
ries of descending o-enerations, can have no connection with the sub- 
ject of baptism of persons. Neither has the term house-HOLD (oikia 1 ! 
any immediate connection with this subject ; scripture affording no 
instance of a house-HOLD being baptized, as such : though individ- 
uals comprised in it might be. We are therefore restricted to the 
consideration of the term house in the sense of family ; and it cor- 
responds perfectly with our English term. Had it been rendered 
family at first, no error could have arisen upon the subject of bap- 
tism." Facts and Evidences, p. 47. 

Rev. James E. Quaw, speaking of the difference be- 
tween oikos and oikia says, " If servants or property were 
to be included in a word, another was used by the Greeks. They 
then employed (oikia), a word for which it is difficult to find an ex- 
act substitute in the English Language. Household, denoting the 
family or house and what holds to it, expresses more of its meaning 
than any other single English word. But the term oikia, itself in- 
cludes or may include the family, the dwelling, the out-houses, the 
servants and the property in and near the buildings. This compound 
idea is frequently at least, embraced in this one Greek word. . . This 
word, oikia, says a noted uninspired Greek writer (Aristotle) is used 
to denote both " bond and free." But let us find its meaning in 
God's book. A few paragraphs from the inspired word, will show 
its meaning as taught by perfect wisdom. It includes serranXs. 
This is taught in the salutation " of Caesar's ^oikias) household." 
About the year 64, when this was written, not one of Caesar's rela- 
tions had been converted to Christianity ; but at that time a num- 
ber of his servants had embraced the christian faith. The word 
oikia, therefore, which includes servants is used, not that oikos 
which denotes kindred, or relation. Our Saviour declares, " the ser- 
vant abideth not in the (oikia) house forever/ Here the word oikia 
signifies or certainly includes the appartments appropriated to the 
servants for their special accommodation. It ( oikia) denotes out- 
houses. It is said of Christ and his mother : ' w there was no room 
for them in the Inn." yet the wise men, w * when they were come in- 



204 



INFANT BAPTISM, 



to the (oikian) house— saw the young child with Mary his mother." 
The word here certainly denotes a stable or an out-house ; for Je- 
sus after his birth was laid " in a manger." This word (oikia) in- 
cludes the property belonging to the family. This truth is taught in 
the charge brought by our Saviour against the Pharisees — He says 
to them ; " Ye devour widow's (oikias) houses." These words (oi- 
kos) and (oikia) are not synonymous ; nor are they so nearly so, that 
the one may be substituted for the other. The account which God 
gives, by his inspired servant, of the conversion of Cornelius, the Ro- 
man Centurion, proves this position. His dwelling including his 
family, is five times expressed by (oikos) one of these words. " He 
feared God with all his (oiko) house ;" — an angel directed him to 
send for Peler " into his, (oikon) house j" — Peter and "six brethren 
— entered into this man's (oikon) house ;" — " he had seen an angel 
in his (oiko) house ;"— " thou and all thy (oikos) house shall be 
saved." The dwelling, out-houses, servants and family of Simon 
the tanner or his whole establishment is four times expressed by oi- 
kia, the other w T ord. The tanner's (oikia) house is by the sea side ;" 
— the men inquired " for Simon's {oikian) house ;" — Peter " is lodg- 
ed in the {oikia) house of one Simon a tanner ;" — " three men" came 
" unto the (oikian) house where Peter was." In this account the 
angel, the inspired writer of the Acts, Cornelius, his servants and 
Peter, all use these words. But in no instance is the one substi- 
tuted for the other. The spirit of God does not therefore use them 
as if they were synonymous. Moreover, the one (oikos) expresses 
only a part of what the other (oikia) signifies. The word which de- 
notes only a part of any thing cannot be synonymous with that 
which expresses the whole. Besides the one (oikos) is masculine 
and the other (oikia) is feminine. This their difference of gender, 
as well as their difference of signification, shows that they cannot be 
interchanged. It appears therefore that the meaning of the word 
(oikos) for house denoting a family, is definitely fixed in the Greek 
language ; that it primarily and principally signifies infants ; and 
that it is very seldom, if at all used where infants are not included. 
It is also manifest that where servants and others compose the whole, 
or a part of the society mentioned, another word (oikia) is used." 
See Quaw on Bap. p. 299, 300. 

Mr. Taylor, Editor of Calmet's Diet., after a most dili- 
gent and patient examination of oikos and oikia — their use 
and meaning in both Old and New Testament, and also 



NEW TESTAMENT ARCUMENT. 205 

among ancient classic Greek writers, concludes as follows ; 
u Being myself convinced that the apostles practised infant bap- 
tism, and that the Evangelist meant to tell us so : 1 affirm that the 
natural import of the term (oikos) family, includes children of all 
ages. In proof, I offer fifty examples ; if fifty are not sufficient, I 
offer a hundred ; if a hundred are not sufficient, two hundred ; if two 
hundred are not sufficient, four hundred. 1 affirm that oikos very 
often expresses the presence of infants ; of this 1 offer fifty exam- 
ples ; and if we admit classic instances, fifty more. Euripides alone 
affords half the number ; though he frequently uses domos instead 
of oikos. More than three hundred instances hare been examined, 
which have proved perfectly satisfactory.'' Facts and Evidences, 
p. 89. 

In further proof of our position, that oikos properly de- 
notes such a family as embraces children, we will now in- 
troduce some examples of the use of the word from both 
Old and New Testament. When Sarah gave her hand- 
maid to Abram, she said, " It may be that I may be build- 
ed by her." On this text Dr. Gill, the Baptist Commen- 
tator, observes, " For women by bearing children build up 
an house, see Ruth 4 : 11, hence a son in Hebrew is called 
Ben, from banah, to build." When Boaz married Ruth, 
his coutrymen said, " The Lord make the woman that is 
come into thine house like Rachael and like Leah, which 
two did build the (oikon) house of Israel." — " And let thine 
(oikos) house be like the (oikos) house of Pharez ... of the 
seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman." 
Hence the (oikos) house of Boaz, of Pharez, and of Israel 
was " built," as Dr. Gill says, " by bearing children." So 
also in relation to David it is said, " The Lord — will make 
thee a (oikos) house;" — " he will build thee a (oikos) 
house." David prayed saying, " bless the (oikos) house 
of thy servant ;" — " let the (oikos) house of thy servant be 
blessed forever ;" — and God said to him, " thy (oikos) 
house shall be establshed." 2 Sam. 7 : 11—29. 



206 INFANT BAPTISM. 

Mr. Taylor observes in his ' Facts and Evidences,' p. 87, 88,- 
4 That the Lxx express infants by the term oikos, appears from the 
following instances.' Gen. 18 : 19— 4 For 1 know Abraham that he 
will command his children, even his family— o^os— after him/ 
Isaac was only promised, not born at the time. Gen. 34 : 30—' 1 be- 
ing few in number shall be destroyed, 1 and my family, oikos. 1 There 
were infants in Jacob's family, at the time. JSum 18 : 31— ; Ye shall 
eat it in every place, ye and your families, oikos ; for it is your re- 
ward for service.' The infants of the priest's and Levites did eat at 
three years old 4 their reward for service.' Deut. 12 : 7 and 15 : 20— 
4 And ye shall eat before the Lord and rejoice, ye and your families, 
oikos.' The same infants who did eat before the Lord are here said 
to « rejoice' before the Lord. Deut. 14 : 26— ■ Thou shalt eat before 
the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy family, oi- 
kos.' Here again the parent is said to ' rejoice' with his family be- 
fore the Lord ; which is exactly what is said of the Jailer's family 
when baptized ; and as it here expresses the presence of infants, chil- 
dren of three or four years old, so undoubtedly it does in the New 
Testament. Deut. 25 : 9 — c Then shall his brother's wife say, Thus 
shall it be done unto that man who will not build up his brother's fam- 
ily, oikos' — by procreation of infants. 1 Sam. 2 : 33 — l The increase 
of thy family — oikos — shall die in the flower of their age.' This must 
mean infants. 2 Sam. 7 : 16. 29 — ' And thy family, oikos, and thy 
kingdom shall be established forever. Thou hast spoken of thy ser- 
vant's family, oikos, for a great while to come. 1 Chron. 17 : 23 — 
25 — This must mean infants. 1 Kings 13 : 2 — { Behold, a child shall 
be born to the family, oikos of David.' This child must be an in- 
fant. Psalms 113 : 9 — ' He caused the barren woman to have a fam- 
ily, oikos ; and to be a joyful mother of children.' Infants are here 
intended." 

The following quotation from Mr. W. L. McCalla, 
shows how Dr. Gill explains the word house, and house-* 
hold, when writing as a commentator. " In the following 
half dozen instances, Gill considers the word house as equivalent to 
family, and neither he nor any other will probably deny that infants 
are included. The people are required to support the priests, * that 
the blessing may rest in thine house' — Ez. 44 : 30. 4 And the Lord 
blessed Obed-edom and all his household' — 2 Sam. 6: 11. 'And 
thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 207 

given unto thee, and unto thine house' — Deut. 26 : 11. c Therefore 
now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant.' * And with 
thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed forever' — 2 Sam. 
7 : 29. * And all the people departed every man to his house, and 
David returned to bless his house' — 1 Chron. 16: 43. ' Wo to him 
that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house'" — Hab. 2 : 9. 

" When it is said again, ' Then David returned to bless his house- 
hold' — 2 Sam. 6 : 20. Gill says ' his wife, children and servants.' 
When it is said that 'Esau took his wives, and his sons and his 
daughters, and all the persons of his house' — Gen. 36 : 6, Gill inter- 
prets, l his men-servants and maid-servants that were born in his 
house, or bought with his money.' When Jacob * had a large family 
to provide for,' as Gill observes, then he said to Laban, ' When shall 

1 provide for mine own house also' — Gen. 30 : 30. When the prophet 
tells us that wicked governors c oppress a man and his house' — Micab, 

2 : 2, Dr. Gill interprets that they i distress a man and his family for 
the present, and his posterity after him'. . . When the wise man says 
1 Every wise woman buildeth her house' — Prov. 14: 1, Dr. Gill 
understands that she does it not only by her piety, prudence, and in- 
dustry ; but ' by her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachael built up the 
house of Israel.' When it is said ' She looketh well to the ways 
of her household' — Prov. 31 : 27, Gill considers it as meaning 'her 
children and servants.' When it is said of this wise woman, that ' She 
giveth meat to her household'— Prov. 31 : 15, Gill, in spiritualizing 
the passage, makes household to include children and babes. Paul 
says that a bishop must be c One that ruleth well his own house, hav- 
ing his children in subjection with all gravity.' * For if a man 
know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the 
church of God.' c Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ru- 
ling their children and their own houses well.' These houses Gill 
considers as embracing c the family, wife, children, and servants." 
McCalla's Report, &c. p. 373, 4. 

We might multiply examples of the use of the word oU 
kos, house or household, from the New Testament; but 
we consider it unnecessary. That New Testament writers 
used it in the same sense that Old Testament writers did 
is certain. We will now look after the objections of our 
opponents. All that can be said to destroy the argument 



208 INFANT BAPTISM. 

for infant baptism, derived from the use of oikos, family , 
has been said by Mr. Alexander Campbell, in his " De- 
bate with Mr. McCalla." In his usual dogmatic style, he 
" boldly pronounces" the criticism on oikos a " refuge of 
lies," and goes on to say ; — " I then positively assert that 
in the bible there is no more difference betwixt the use 
and application of the words oikos and oikia than there is 
between the words brothers and brethren." I suppose he 
adds " you all know that the difference betwixt the words 
brothers and brethren is only in the orthography, or spel- 
ling of the words, and that there is no difference in the 
sense." Debate, p. 262, 279. 

Mr. Campbell then gives us the results of his learned 
criticism in a long marginal note, wherein he endeavors to 
prove that oikos and oikia are used interchangeably to de- 
note the very same house, and are therefore, " completely 
synonymous." We confess, that when we first read his 
note ? prefaced with such bold and confident assertions^ it 
appeared somewhat formidable ; but after carefully look- 
ing out his proof-texts, and examining their " use and ap- 
plication," we were only confirmed in our belief, that our 
position is the bible vieio of the subject, and is unanswer- 
able. Our position is this : oikia is the word employed by 
the inspired writers to denote the establishment or prem- 
ises at large—out-houses, servants, and may include the 
oikos or family : while the word oikos is used to denote a 
family embracing children, and is seldom, if ever employed 
to denote servants exclusively. Hence, oikia is used in a 
more general, and oikos in a restricted sense. This Mr. 
Campbell denies, and affirms that " there is no more dif- 
ference betwixt the words oikos and oikia than there is be- 
tween the words brothers and brethren" — that they are used 
" as completely synonymous" — and " differ only in orthog- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 209 

raphy or spelling. " Now, for the sake of argument, sup- 
pose we should admit that out of 500 examples of the use 
of oikos and oikia Mr. Campbell has found 20 instances 
where they denote the same house ; does that either disap- 
prove our position, or prove that these words are " com- 
pletely synonymous V 3 Suppose these words are inter- 
changed in a few instances ! Does that prove, that oikos is 
not the proper word to denote a family embracing children ! 
Does it prove that oikia is not the proper word to denote 
the premises at large ? 

The difficulty is here, Mr. Campbell's logic affirms, 
that when two words are applied to the same thing, they 
are " completely synonymous" — they only differ in spel- 
ling — there is no difference in the sense ! According to 
this new canon of criticism, all words applied to the same 
thing must be synonymous. The appellations and perfec- 
tions of Deity may be expressed by different words, still 
those words all denote one and the same idea ! Redeemer, 
Saviour, Jesus, Messiah, Christ, Mediator, are but differ- 
ent ways of spelling out the same idea — the words are 
" completely synonymous." Why not, if oikos and oikia 
are " completely synonymous" because applied, as Mr. C. 
claims to the same house ? 

But there is a single fact which shows the absurdity of 
Mr. Campbell's bold assertion. We have already stated, 
that oikos is masculine and oikia feminine gender. With 
this fact before him, is the reader prepared to believe, that 
" there is no more difference betwixt the use and applica- 
tion of the words oikos and oikia, than there is between the 
words brothers and brethren 1" Are words of different gen- 
der, *' completely synonymous with Mr. C. V Did the in- 
spired writers make no distinction in gender, only in orthog- 
raphy or spelling ? Why in the name of common sense then, 



210 INFANT BAPTISM. 

did they keep up a distinction in gender, if they intended in 
the use of both words to express precisely the same idea ? If 
oikos and oikia mean the same thing, then, for ought we 
know, when the inspired writers use the words brother and 
sister, they mean the same person by both words, the words 
only differ in spelling ! We had always supposed that when 
writers employed words of different gender, they designed 
to express a difference in kind, or quality ; but according 
to Mr. C there is necessarily " no difference, only in spel- 
ling," the words may be " completely'synonymous." But 
enough ! If oikos and oikia differ in gender, then they do 
not agree in "sense" and Mr. Campbell's position is the 
" refuge of lies." 

But we now repeat the substance of the remarks we 
have already made, viz. that it is not even necessary to show 
that oikos and oikia are not " completely synonymous" in 
order to establish our position, that oikos is the proper 
word, and uniformly employed by the inspired writers to 
denote a family embracing children. The texts already 
introduced prove such to be the fact : nor do the quota- 
tions furnished by Mr. Campbell go to disapprove it: — his 
great effort is, to prove these words " synonymous." But 
the reader need not be informed that words may be " com- 
pletely synonymous" and still one be the proper word, and 
uniformly employed to express a certain idea. This is 
what we affirm of oikos — it is the word to denote such a 
house, household, or family as embraces children of all 
ages — infants and little ones." Let us now apply this fact 
to the examples of household baptism recorded in the New 
Testament. In every instance where the sacred writer 
speaks of the baptism of a house, the word used is oikos, 
but never oikia. And if oikia is in any way connected 
with the occasion, or circumstances, it is never used when 



NEW TESTAMENT~ARGUMENT. 211 

speaking of the fact that the household was baptized ; oi- 
kos is then employed in every instance. Hence we read 
of the baptism of Lydia " and her oikos, household," — of 
the "baptism of the oikos, household of Stephanas," and 
of the baptism of the Jailer " and all his," i. e. house. The 
case of the Jailer carries with it the evidence that the in- 
spired writer designed to apply oikos to his family exclu- 
sively. Look at the facts. In the 31st verse, where the 
apostle preaches the good old Abrahamic covenant, doc- 
trine, of blessings to the believer and his seed after him, 
the word is oikos : — " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy oikos, house." But when 
it is said in verse 32, " They spake the word of the Lord 
. . . unto all that were in his house" the word is oikia, and 
most certainly denotes the outer prison at large, because 
after this it is expressly stated, verse 34, that the Jailer 
brought them, i. e. Paul and Silas into his house, and set 
meat before them ; hence, they were not in his family res- 
idence, when they spake the word of the Lord . . . unto 
all that were in his oikia, house. But immediately after, 
when " he brought them into his house," the word oikos is 
used again. In this oikos, the Jailer lived with his fam- 
ily ; — here he could spread his table, and set meat before 
them. It is in this connection that we read, " he rejoic- 
ed, believing in God, with all his house ;" or as it should 
be rendered, " he rejoiced through all his house, having 
believed in God." The word house in this last instance, 
is in Greek panoiki, " he rejoiced through all his panoiki, 
hovse." The same word occurs in Ex. 1 : 1, " These are 
the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt ; 
every man and his panoiki, household, came with Jacob." 
Now in Gen. 46 : 5, it is expressly said, they " carried 
their little ones" into Egypt : hence panoiki denotes (f little 
19 



212 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ones ; v and renders it doubly certain that oikos in this con- 
nection is employed with special reference to the fact that 
the Jailer's house embraced children. 

In view of these examples, the question comes up again, 
Why did the inspired writers use oikos, the regular word 
to denote a family embracing children, if they believed 
and taught, that believers only must receive baptism, and 
each individual upon the profession of his or her own 
faith ? Why adopt the very phraseology employed to ex- 
press the presence of children of all ages — " infants and 
little ones," if they designed to exclude " infants and little 
ones I !" Certainly the precepts and practices of the Jews, 
as a nation, would lead every honest Jew to suppose that 
children were still in covenant relation with the church, 
since these Jewish ministers baptized households, the same 
as households were circumcised among them. In fact, 
the very mention of " household baptism" would infallibly 
lead every converted Jew into the practice of infant bap- 
tism, unless particularly instructed to the contrary :— so 
that the very term oikos in connection with baptism was 
calculated to mislead, unless sacred writers intended to 
teach the doctrine, and practice by the use of this word. 
There is no escape from this conclusion without proving 
that oikos, is not the proper word to denote a family em- 
bracing children of all ages ; a task which our opponents 
will never undertake. 

Facts and Reasons. 

Before continuing the " History of Infant Baptism" 
from the " Acts of the apostles" through the " History of 
the Father's of the church, during the earliest ages of 
Christianity" we will offer a few arguments based upon 
" Reason and fact s." 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 213 

1. Infant baptism accords with the wishes and feelings of 
the christian parent. We put it to the conscience of every 
christian father and mother : Would you consider it no priv- 
ilege to bring your children to the altar of God's sanctuary, 
that they might receive that sacramental washing of water, 
in the name " of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost," which denotes moral cleansing, and points to 
God's covenant with believers, and their seed after them? 
We pity that parent, who does not even desire the privi- 
lege, but considers the act unholy and profane ! That the 
provisions of God's covenant should accord with the de- 
sires of the pious heart, is a dictate of reason. 

But we are met with the objection, (i I can consecrate 
my children to God in the closet, and in private." Ans. 
Pedobaptists can also consecrate their children to God in 
the closet, and in secret ; and still do it publicly. That 
individuals opposed to all public pledges, or covenants, 
should make this objection, is not strange ; but it is singu- 
lar that christians, who believe in public covenants should 
offer it. Why not object to 'publicly covenanting to serve 
God, when they unite with the church ? Or unite with a 
voluntary association by a secret pledge ! This objection is 
founded in a mistake relative to the real design of infant 
consecration. It overlooks the great practical influence 
of entering into covenant with God by some visible token 
as a sign or confirmation of the divine promise, and as ev- 
idence of our relation to God. A covenant that involves 
obedience, imposes conditions, and consequently is mu- 
tual. Hence, God said to Abraham, " Walk before me 
and be thou perfect . . . and / will make my covenant be- 
tween me and thee." God therefore promised to be " a God 
unto Abraham, and his seed after him ;" and Abraham 
promised to live unto God himself, and train up his house- 



214 INFANT BAPTISM. 

hold in the fear and service of God. Precisely the same is 
now true in the baptism of a believer and his household ; 
- — God says, " I will be a God unto thee and thy seed af- 
ter thee," or, " Believe . . . and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house ;" while the believer says, " i" will be thine, and I will 
train up my consecrated household for thee." There is, 
therefore, precisely the same reason for a public consecra- 
tion of your child to God in baptism, that there is for your 
own consecration to God in baptism. That child belongs 
to you, and depends upon you, so far as its moral training 
up to a certain age is concerned, as much as you belong 
to yourself; or your moral character depends upon your- 
self. The salvation of that child, under God, is as much 
in your hands, as your own salvation. And the baptism 
of that child signifies just what your own baptism denotes 
— it points to the work of the Spirit of God. 

We are fully aware that our position throws a tremen- 
dous weight of responsibility upon the parent : but even so, 
there is where God lays the responsibility ; and one great 
object of the covenant relation of children, is to make pa- 
rents feel that responsibility. When the inspired writers 
speak of the duties of parents, and of the results of faith- 
fully discharging those duties, they speak positively. 
Hence, " Train up a child in the way he should go, and 
when he is old he will not depart from it." God don't 
say, " try to train up a child," but positively do it ! God 
don't say, " when he is old, perhaps he will not depart 
from it," but positively, " he will not I" Prov. 22 : 6. The 
fidelity of Abraham was the ground of confidence, when 
God declared " I know him (Abraham) that he will com- 
mand his children and his household after him, and they 
shall keep the way of the Lord." The same is true un- 
der the New Testament dispensation ; hence the apostle 
enjoins the duty, " Bring them (children) up in the nur- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 215 

ture and admonition of the Lord" — Eph. 6 : 4. Not 
merely try to " bring them up!" but do it. God neither 
limits the duty, nor the promise, because the duty is prac- 
ticable and the promised results, certain ; and the fact that 
the promise is not always realized, only proves that the 
conditions are not always fulfilled. We utterly discard, 
and condemn as derogatory to the character of God, that 
exposition of such passages, which assumes that parents 
may do their whole duty and yet fail of the promised bless- 
ing ! " Let God be true but every man a liar," sooner 
than admit such a principle. God's everlasting covenant 
says, " I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
thee" — " The promise is unto you, and to your children" 
— " Believe . . . and thou shalt be saved, and thy house :" 
and as the covenant requires a public dedication of our- 
selves to God ; so it demands a public consecration of our 
children, who are equally embraced in the promise. Let 
parents do their duty, and God will perform his promise ; 
so that a baptized child may infallibly become a child of 
grace. 

Another, and very common objection is answered by 
the remarks just offered. We frequently hear the question 
" What good will it do to baptize infants ?" This is a kind 
of infidel objection. The objector might find both an an- 
swer and a rebuke by extending his question. " What 
good did it do to circumcise infants ?" " What good does 
it do to baptize an adult ?" " What good will it do to 
pray ?" " What good does it do to enter into covenant 
with God ?" In fact, such an objection is a virtual insult to 
God ; as if his covenant was of no practical use. Had 
such objectors lived in the days of Abraham, they might 
have expostulated with the old patriarch, relative to the 
absurdity of applying a religious rite to an " unconscious 
19* 



216 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



babe" only eight days old. " What good will circumcis- 
ion do an infant ?" But if circumcision, in the case of an 
infant only eight days old, was useful, as a " sign of Christ, 
and of the renewal of the heart ;" then baptism may also 
be useful as a sign of moral cleansing by the spirit of God ; 
and those who challenge the utility of infant baptism, may 
with equal propriety question the wisdom of God in or- 
daining infant circumcision. 

But says the objector : " A great many parents wholly 
fail of training up their baptized children as they covenant 
to do, and their children are as bad, and many times even 
worse than others." Answer : Many baptized professors 
of religion fail of living up to their solemn covenant en- 
gagements, and are even worse than many who make no 
profession ! What then ? Was it wrong to covenant ? Or 
is a public covenant useless ? This would be arguing the 
utility of an institution, or ordinance from the abuse of it, 
instead of judging of its character from its design and ten- 
dency. 

2. We argue the doctrine of infant baptism from its 
adaptation to facilitate and secure the faithful discharge of 
parental duty in training up children for God and use- 
fulness. We have already shown that infant baptism in- 
volves a covenant between God and the parent, which 
binds the latter to " bring up his children in the nurture 
and admonition of the Lord." Now in this covenant God 
acts perfectly in accordance with the laws of the human 
mind. The more solemn, public and important you make 
an act, the more likely you are to secure the end contem- 
plated. Hence the formal administration of an oath goes 
to impress the witness with the importance of telling " the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The 
same is true in regard to any pledge or promise : the more 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 2l7 

solemn importance you give to the subject, the more invi- 
olable the engagement, and the more likely to be fulfilled. 
The same principle applies in the baptism of infants ; and 
if the solemn vow of the parent, to train up his offspring 
for God ; made in the temple of God, when the consecrat- 
ing element was applied " in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," is useless; then it is 
useless for the christian, " in the presence of God, angels 
and men solemnly to avouch the Lord Jehovah to be his 
God and portion forever." If a deliberate, pre-meditated 
public consecration of ourselves is useful, because our 
pledged honor, integrity, and solemn vow constrain us to 
be faithful ; then the public consecration of our children to 
God is useful for the same reason. 

Again : While the solemn covenant vow of the parent 
becomes the means of quickening in duty, the fact of con- 
secration to God may be impressed upon the mind of that 
child and with the divine blessing become the means of 
its salvation. If an appeal to the solemn baptismal vow, 
and fact of consecration to God forever, fail of impressing 
the mind of a child ; the dying request of a father, and the 
prayers and instructions of a departed mother, cannot be 
more persuasive and solemn, to impress and restrain : yet 
the power of the latter, all acknowledge. 

3. We further argue the divine origin of infant baptism 
from its utility, as demonstrated by facts Now, we as- 
sume, that were the bible wholly silent upon the subject, 
yet infant baptism proved a decided blessing, it would still 
be obligatory upon the church of God. We are far from 
believing that the letter of command is the boundary line 
of human duty. Do the Ten Commandments specify all 
that is obligatory ? Does the gospel of Christ distinctly 
point to each duty ? Says James, 4 : 17, " Therefore, to 



218 INFANT BAPTISM. 

him that Jcnoiveth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is 
sin." Reject this position and all " voluntary associations" 
become merely discretionary, and opposition to them is a 
matter of taste, or preference — simply a different way of 
doing things. But admit that God is with such associa- 
tions, blesses the means employed to gain the end contem- 
plated ; and then opposition is " fighting against God." 
The same may be said of infant baptism : — prove its utili- 
ty ; that God blesses the covenant relation and baptism of 
infants as a means to their conversion ; and you then prove 
that the practice fully accords with the genius of Chris- 
tianity, and that the christian may not oppose it, without 
making war upon God's own method of doing good. 
Look at facts. 

Dr. E. Hall remarks as follows : " An attention to facts shows 
that God does remember his covenant, and put honor upon its seal. 
From the published and official returns of the Congregational church- 
es of Connecticut to the General Association in 1834, it appears that 
two-thirds of all that were received to the churches on profession of 
faith, the preceding year, had been baptized in infancy. Struck 
with this fact, 1 was curious to add up the results for several years, 
and found them very nearly the same. The result of our examina- 
tion of like reports of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and of the 
General Association of New York were not essentially different. 

About two-thirds of all those received to our Pedobaptist churches 
on confession of faith, are such as were baptized in their infancy. 
But taking the whole field, the baptized children constitute probably, 
not more than o?ie-third of the children attached to the congregations 
of these churches, or falling properly to no other denomination. 
The state of the case, then, is this} out of orac-third of a population 
tico are hopefully converted, and brought into the church, where 
there is one so converted out of the remaining two-thuds : a ratio of 
four to one ! What will this amount to in the whole country ? What 
in the whole world ? What will it amount to if you trace it down to 
the end of time ? To a " multitude which is as the sand by the sea- 
shore, innumerable !" But in the Western and Southern parts of the 
country, the difference is more striking than in New England ; be- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 219 

cause the proportion of the members of the church of Christ to the 
whole population is far less. And these results are witnessed when 
so much confident denunciation of infant baptism has led so man}' 
members of the church to neglect it; and led so many more to re- 
gard it as a mere ritual rather than as the valuable seal of God's 
covenant. O what might have been done, had parents taken hold 
of thai covenant with unwavering faith ; and pleading the covenant, 
had taken encouragement from its promises, and from God's faith- 
fulness to be more correct in the discharge of the duties which that 
covenant implies on the part of parents ! Who is to answer for all this 
loss and harm ? Who is to be responsible for teaching the church of 
God to neglect and despise both the covenant and its seal." Hall 
on Bap. p. 203—4. 

The same writer says in a note, " Of more than 100 so 
received by this church in this place, (Norwalk, Conn.) 
during the eight years of the writer's ministry about three- 
fourths were baptized in their infancy." p. 203. Anoth- 
er pastor states, that* out of 500 added to the church 
during a number of years, 480 were baptized in infancy. 

We might multiply examples to prove that the experi- 
ence of the church is uniform, and that by far the larger 
portion of her increase has been from her sons and daugh* 
ters consecrated to God in baptism. But the facts already 
exhibited show how much confidence is due the oft-repeat- 
ed assertion of our opponents, that infant baptism is inju- 
rious to religion. That God sets his seal of approbation 
to the ordinance is certain, if the conversion and salvation 
of children is considered a divine blessing. But would 
God so signally bless an institution founded in falsehood ? 
Let those who dare oppose an ordinance that God seals 
with his blessing, answer it; while it is enough for us to 
know that God accepts our consecration. 

4. We argue infant baptism from the fact that God nev- 
er made a covenant with parents that did not include their 
children. It is divine policy that children should go with 



220 INFANT BAPTISM. 

their parents ; and not that parents should be received in- 
to covenant, and their children sustain no other relation 
than heathen children to the church of God. p. 114. 

5. Says Dr. Pond, " The Epistles of Paul are in most 
instances addressed to particular churches ; as the church at 
Rome, the church at Corinth, the churches in Galatia, &c. 
But we find on examination that several of these Epistles 
contain directions for children, ' Children obey your parents 
in the Lord, for this is right/ ' Honor thy father and mother 
that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long on 
the earth' — See Eph. 6:1, and Col. 3 : 20. Is it not evi- 
dent from these passages, that the apostle regarded the chil- 
dren of church members as in some way connected with the 
churches, or as sustaining a very near and peculiar rela- 
tion to them ? Else, why should he so particularly address 
himself to children, in epistles directed expressly to the 
churches V p. 77. 

6. Casting the children of God's people out of the 
church, would have been a change of vast importance, par- 
ticularly to the believing Jews. From Abraham to Christ, 
the entire Jewish nation had been accustomed to infant 
church membership ; indeed, it was a part of the constitu- 
tion of their church, and essential to its existence. But 
dear reader, did the Jews quietly give up the covenant 
rights and relations of their children, when Christ came 
— and even without so much as a notice of the change. 
If a single Pedobaptist church should now abandon infant 
baptism, it would be trumpeted as an event of great mo- 
ment and quoted a thousand times as proof against the 
doctrine. But according to our opponents, this change 
was effected so silently, as not even to leave a trace of the 
fact on thej>ages of inspired history. Yes ; the tenacious, 
jealous Jews gave up this long cherished institution of 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 221 

their fathers, and such was the indifference, that neither 
friend nor foe ever recorded the fact ! Believe it who can. 
7. According to our opponents the gospel dispensation 
does not grant as many privileges to believing parents, and 
make as full provision for the salvation of their children, 
as the Old Testament dispensation. The latter united pa- 
rents professing the true religion, and their offspring in 
covenant relation with God and his church ; while accord- 
ing to our opponents, the gospel system admits believers 
only, and excludes their children. Once, circumcision 
was " profitable" as the appointed sign and seal of God's 
covenant with his professed children and their seed after 
them ; but the gospel system so impairs the Abrahamic 
covenant, with its promise, " I will be a God unto thee 
and to thy seed," as to leave the children of believers 
to the " uncovenanted mercies of God." The Abrahamic 
covenant required a solemn public consecration of children 
to God, and affixed a token of that covenant ; but the gos- 
pel denies to children the sign of God's covenant, baptism 
and leaves the parent to his own private promises of fidel- 
ity in training up his offspring.- We submit it to our read- 
er, whether such is the gospel plan — so inferior in its pro- 
visions and promises to the Old Testament dispensation ; 
or whether the " blessings of Abraham have come upon 
the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." 

CHURCH HISTORY. 

1. History, sacred or profane is a simple record of 
facts as they have transpired in the past. As such, we in- 
troduce the History of the church in support of infant bap- 
tism. An argument to prove, or disprove infant baptism 
is not history ; — it is an argument. When we quote the 



222 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ancient Fathers of the church, we do not rely upon their 
opinions, but their testimony to facts ; in their opinions 
and views of bible doctrine, they might mistake as fallible 
men : but as martyrs for the truth they would not lie about 
facts. If therefore we can introduce numerous examples 
of infant baptism among the Fathers of the church during 
the second and third centuries ; and if those Fathers testi- 
fy that the practice was common and universal in their 
day, and that they received it from the apostles, then the 
argument from history is conclusive ; and the only way to 
meet the argument is to impeach the testimony of men, 
who died martyrs for the truth. 

Again : we have already shown, that when Christ came, 
he found infants in covenant relation with God and his 
church, and that the baptism of infant proselytes was in 
use. Now if we prove that 100 years after the Saviour's 
death, infants were baptized and received into covenant 
relation, then, even were the New Testament silent, the 
conclusion would seem unavoidable, infant baptism pre- 
vailed during the interval of the apostles. But when we 
find infant church membership universal up to the time of 
the apostles ; and " household baptism" practiced by the 
apostles themselves ; and then find the practice universal, 
within 100 years after the apostles, what are we to think 
of the candor of such as decide that such testimony is ir- 
relevant, or proves nothing as to apostolic practice or be- 
lief. True we have not yet 'proved all this, but by the 
blessing of God we intend to establish it, and point out 
theirs* man in history that ever opposed infant baptism. 

1. We will begin with the old Peshito-Syriac version. 
Let our reader now turn to page 190 and see what our bap- 
tist brethren say for this version. They date it back to the 
first or beginning of the second century, and almost claim 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 223 

for it inspiration. But that version declares that " Lydia 
was baptized and her children." So does the Coptic 
version. Now whoever got up these versions, believed in 
the doctrine that the baptism of children in the character 
of " households," was a bible doctrine, and accorded with 
apostolic practice. 

We will now invite the attention of our reader to Wall's 
History of Infant Baptism. Wall's History gives all the 
facts which relate to infant baptism, bothyb?' and against, 
during the first four hundred years of the christian church : 
and as quotations and extracts in proof of ancient practice 
relative to infant baptism, should have a responsible ori- 
gin, we will briefly notice the character of Dr. Wall's His- 
tory. The work was first published in 1705 — almost 150 
years ago ; hence measurably before the age of fierce con- 
troversy upon this subject, and consequently more likely 
to be impartial in its character. This History was deem- 
ed so valuable an acquisition to the christian church, 
that the English clergy, soon after its publication, " as- 
sembled in convocation," passed Dr. Wall a vote of thanks 
for his learned and excellent work. 

The learned Mr. Wm, Whiston, a baptist, and the suc- 
cessor of Sir I. Newton in Cambridge University, calls him 
" the very honest, learned and pious Dr. Wall ; whose Histo- 
ry of Infant-baptism (not as to the controversial part, but as 
to the facts therein contained) seems to me most accurate- 
ly done ; and may I think be depended on by the Baptists 
themselves." See the Editor's Advert, of Wall vol. J, p. IT. 

Crosby, the historian of the English Baptists, calls him 
" the ingenious Dr. Wall," and pronounces his work " an 
elaborate history." ib. p. 18. Such testimonials, coming 
from the clergy in council, and also from our opponents^ 
his learned contemporaries, can but inspire confidence la 
20 



224 INFANT BAPTISM. 

his work ; and as Mr. Whiston remarks, " as to the facts 
therein contained . . . may be depended on by the Baptists 
themselves." With Wall's History before us, we now 
proceed to our examination of facts relative to the prac- 
tice of the primitive christian church. 

Hermas, whose name is mentioned by Paul, Rom. 16 : 
14, and who, it is supposed, wrote his Pastor even before 
John wrote his gospel, says, " whosoever therefore shall 
continue as infants, without malice, shall be more honora- 
ble than all those of whom I have yet spoken. For all 
infants are valued by the Lord, and esteemed first of all." 
And again, " The baptism of water is necessary to alV 

Justin Mart\'R, who was born before the death of John, 
lC the beloved disciple," says, " Several persons among us 
of 60 and 70 years old, of both sexes, who were made dis- 
ciples to Christ in childhood, do continue uncorrupted." 
Wall, V. 1, p. 70. For " disciple," Justin uses the same 
word that our Saviour employed when he says "Go ye 
therefore and teach, or disciple all nations, baptizing them,'' 
&c. : and the word translated " childhood" is the same 
word that Christ uses when he speaks of " little children : n 
Luke says, " infants." Sixty or seventy years back of the 
time Justin wrote, would carry us down to the days of the 
apostles : so that these aged persons might have been 
among the first-fruits of household baptism. 

Irenaeus, wrote a few years later than Justin Martyr. 
The highest authorities place his birth about four years be- 
fore the death of the apostle John ; or 97 years after the 
birth of Christ : so that his parents lived during the age of 
the apostles. Irenaeus speaks as follows, " Therefore as 
he was a Master, he had also the age of a Master. Not disdaining 
nor going in a way above human nature ; nor breaking in his own 
person the law which he had set for mankind : but sanctifying every 
several age by the likeness that it has to him, for he came to save all 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 225 

persons by himself: all, 1 mean, who by him are regenerated (i. e. 
baptized) unto God ; infants and little ones, and children and youths, 
and elder persons. Therefore he went through the several ages ; 
for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants ; to little ones 
he was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age ; and also 
giving them an example of godliness, justice and dutiful ness : to 
youths he was a youth," &c. ib. 72. 

Here then is conclusive evidence of the practice of in- 
fant baptism, in the christian church, within about 65 years 
of the death of St. John. But perhaps it is due our oppo- 
nents to say, that they have succeeded in starting at least, 
the shadow of an objection to the testimony of Irenaeus. 
For " baptized unto God," he uses the phrase " renascun- 
tur in Deum" — " regenerated unto God." Dr. Wall, who 
well understood the lang-uaore of the Fathers of the church, 
says, " any man, who has been at all conversant with the 
Fathers, will be satisfied that they as constantly meant bap- 
tized by the word regenerated, as we mean the same by the 
word christened." 

Mr. Whiston, the learned Baptist writer already quoted, 
admits this fact, " that the word regeneration is generally, 
if not constantly used with relation to baptismal regenera- 
tion :" — indeed he declares it a " thing undeniable by any 
modest arguer." See Whiston's Primitive Inf. Bap. p. 7. 
Wall V. 4, p. 50. 370. 

Even the great Baptist Controversialist, Mr. Alexander 
Campbell, in the " Milennial Harbinger," Vol. 2 Extra, p. 
28, 29, uses the following language relative to this point. 

" In my debate with Mr. Walker and Mr. McCalla, 1 objected to 
the substitution of the word regenerated for immerse (or baptize) in the 
extract from Ikenaeus, and other of the primitive fathers, as they 
are called, on the ground of their not being exactly representatives 
of the same idea universally. I admitted that sometimes they used 
the word regenerated for baptized, but not always ; and, indeed, not 
at all, in the popular sense of regenerated. Well, now it comes to 
pass, that I represent all the primitive fathers as using the term 
regenerated as equivalent to the term baptized. All this is true ; and 
what then ? Why, at that time I used the word regenerated as ex* 



226 INFANT BAPTISM. 

pressive of a spiritual change, and found that these fathers spoke of a 
spiritual change as well as we. 1 could not therefore reconcile this to 
the exclusive application of the term regenerated to the act of immer- 
sion (baptism) ; but on a more accurate and strict examination of their 
writings, and of the use of this term (regenerated) in the New Testa- 
ment, i am assured that they used the term regenerated as equivalent to 
immersion (baptism) and spoke of the spiritual change under other 
terms and modes of speech." See Campbell and Rice's Debate, p. 430. 

Here then according to the testimony of Irenaeus, " in- 
fants and little ones . . . were baptized unto God/ 5 in the 
christian church in his day. In the next place we will 
call attention to the testimony given by Tertullian, who 
was contemporary with Irenaeus, although he wrote a few 
years later. Tertullian was the first Latin father — a fin- 
ished scholar, but somewhat whimsical theological writer. 
That he speaks of infant baptism our opponents admit : 
indeed, they even claim him as the early opponent of in- 
fant baptism. Campbell and McCalla's Debate, p. 368. 
Robinson's History — Baptist work, p. 170. But what says 

Tertullian ? 

" Therefore according to every one's condition and disposition, and 
also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially 
in the case of little children. For what need is there that the god- 
fathers should be brought into danger ? because they may either fail 
of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a childs prov- 
ing of wicked disposition. Our Lord says indeed, " Do not forbid 
them to come to me." Therefore let them come when they are grown 
up; let them come when they understand ; when they are instruct- 
ed whither it is that they come ; let them be made christians when 
they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age to make such 
haste to the forgiveness of sins... For no less reason unmarried 
persons ought to be kept off, who are likely to come into temptation ; 
as well as those that never were married upon account of their com- 
ing to ripeness, as those in widmohood for the miss of their partners, 
until they either marry, or be confirmed in continence. They that 
understand the weight of baptism, will rather dread receiving it, than 
the delaying of it." Wall, V. 1. p. 93, 94. 

Here we find W\z first man that ever raised an objection 

to infant baptism. In the language of Dr. Pond, we can 
say, " with the absurd opinions of this father, we have noth^ 
ing to do. It is merely as a witness to a fact that he is 
introduced. And there is no father whose testimony as 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 227 

to the general practice of infant baptism in the primitive 
age is more convincing, than that of Tertullian. He was 
an honest, but fanciful, whimsical writer, embraced many 
strange and peculiar notions ; and was finally ejected from 
the communion of the church." Pond on Bap. p. 101. 

The reader can easily decide whether this witness is 
for or against us, as to facts. Does he confirm our po- 
sition, that infant baptism was practiced in those days, or 
deny it ? Did Tertullian speak against infant baptism, and 
oppose it before it was practiced, or is his opposition con- 
clusive evidence o/the practice. We only add, if our op- 
ponents endorse his speculations about delaying baptism, 
then let them apply his theory in the case of unmarried 
persons, as well as infants. 

Origen, is the next writer whose testimony we will now 
introduce. He was born about 85 years after the apostolic 
age. " Origen," says Dr. Pond, " had the best possible 
means of information ; for his grandfather, or at most his 
greatgrandfather (both of whom were christians) must have 
been cotemporary with the apostles themselves. Besides he 
was one of the most learned men of his times ; had traveled 
in various countries ; and was acquainted with the usages 
of christians throughout the world." Hear Origen. 

" According to the usage of the church, baptism is given to even 
infants ; when if there was nothing in infants which needed forgive- 
ness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous." 
And again, " The church received a tradition from the apostles to 
give baptism even to infants" Wall, V. 1. p. 103 — 6. We might 
quote pages from Origen, where, under almost every form of ex- 
pression, the same fact is repeated. 

Cyprian. Our next reference is to the distinguished 

Cyprian, who was born about 90 years after the age of the 

apostles, and finally suffered martyrdom for the truth's sake. 

What renders his testimony more important, is the fact 

20* 



228 INFANT BAPTISM. 

that it is the united testimony of himself, and brethren con* 
vened in solemn council, in answer to the question, wheth- 
er it was proper to baptize infants before they were eight 
days old : — thus recognizing baptism as coming in the 
place of circumcision, 

" Cyprian and the rest of the bishops who ivere present 
at the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, 
greeting. 

" We received your letter, most dear brother, in which you write 
of one Victor, a priest, &c. But as to the case of infants : whereas 
you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days 
after they are born ; and that the rule of circumcision is to be ob- 
served, so that none should be baptized before the eighth day after 
he is born : we were all, in our assembly, of a contrary opinion. 

For as for what you thought fitting to to be done, there was not 
one that was of your mind, but all of us on the contrary judged that 
the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born." 
" This therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the assembly ; 
that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism, and the grace 
of God, who is merciful and kind and affectionate to all. Which 
rule, as it holds for all, so we think it more especially to be observed 
in reference to infants and persons newly born." Wall, V. 1. p. 
131—2. 

The testimony derived from this council is conclusive. 
Many of the men composing it, were undoubtedly old men, 
whose history stretched far back toward apostolic times and 
usages. Is it possible that they were ignorant of what the 
apostles taught and practiced, with reference to infant bap- 
tism ? Or did these men deliberately unite to deceive the 
world 1 It seems, that in this large council, composed no 
doubt of men from different parts of the country, the ques- 
tion, " Is it proper to baptize infants," was not even start- 
ed, much less discussed. Reader, where were our zeal- 
ous opponents in those days t And on what page of history 
did they enter their solemn protest against the acts and 
doings of that Pedobaptist council ? Where ? 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 229 

It would be easy to multiply quotations, and extracts 
from the fathers until they constituted a volume by them- 
selves. We might refer to Clemens Alexandrinus, who 
flourished about the time of Tertullian, — also Optatus, 
Gregory, Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostorn and 
Jerome — all of whom flourished within about 100 years of 
Cyprian's time. Still, a little later we find the great Au- 
gustine, who declares that, infant baptism " come not by 
any general council, or by any authority later or less than 
that of the apostles." 

It was Augustine who pressed Pelagius with the ques- 
tion, " Why are infants baptized for the remission of sins 
if they have none ?" And it w T as to avoid the imputation 
that he denied the doctrine of original sin, that led Pela- 
gius to reply as follows ; " Men slander me, as if I denied 
the sacrament of baptism to infants" — " I never heard of 
any, not even the most impious heretic ivho denied baptism 
to infants. For who can be so impious as to hinder in- 
fants from being baptized, and born again in Christ 5 and 
so make them miss of the kingdom of God." Here then 
is Pelagius who was born in Britain, within 300 years 
of the apostolic age ; had resided some time at Rome ; 
traveled through Asia, and Africa ; visited Egypt and 
Jerusalem ; and yet with all his reading and travels " never 
heard of any, not even the most impious heretic who de- 
nied baptism to infants."— Of course, he never heard of 
the present order of Baptists. 

But it seems unnecessary to argue the point that infant 
baptism was universally practiced in the christian church 
in the third century — this will scarcely be denied after 
hearing the testimony of Tertullian and Cyprian. 

Says Dr. Wall, " For the first four hundred years . . . there 
appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay of infant 
baptism, in some cases ; and one Gregory that did, perhaps practice 



230 INFANT BAPTISM. 

such delay in the case of his children ; but no society of men so think- 
ing, or so practicing : nor no one man saying it was unlawful to bap- 
tize infants : so in the next seven hundred years there is not so 
much as one man to be found that either spake for, or practiced any 
such delay. But all the contrary. And when about the year 1130 
one sect among the Albigenses declared against the baptism of in- 
fants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that peo- 
ple rejected that, their opinion, and they of them that held that opin" 
ion quickly dwindled away, and disappeared ; there being no more 
heard of holding that tenet, till the rising of the German Anti-pedo- 
baptists, anno 1522." Wall, Vol. 2, p. 502-3. 

Dr. Worcester of Salem says, " Dr. Gill himself, one of 
the most learned of the anti-pedobaptists writers, acknowl- 
edges that " infant baptism was the practice of the church 
universally from ihejhird to the eleventh century." See 
two Discourses on the Covenant, p. 58. Mr. A. Campbell 
says, " We have no objection to admit that infant baptism 
is 1500 years old, or perhaps a few years older." See De- 
bate with McCalla, p. 365. This concession was made 
about 24 years ago : and the " few years older" which 
Mr. C. is ready to concede will carry us down within some 
200 years of the apostolic age. Let the reader remember 
this, when told that, " Infant baptism had its origin in 
Popery," and " is a part of the system." 

As conclusive evidence, that infant baptism was univer- 
sally practiced in the christian church the first four hun- 
dred years, we adduce the fact that Irenaeus, Epiphanius, 
Philastrius, Austin and Theodoret, each wrote catalogues of 
all the sects and heresies that had arisen in the church ; but 
there are none found who reject infant baptism, unless such 
as reject water baptism altogether. Epiphanius reckons in 
all, eighty heresies, which he says " were all that he heard 
of in the world." Philastrius wrote a little later, and makes 
above 100 heresies. Theodoret mentions some sects that 
rejected water baptism ; but of those that used water bap- 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 231 

tism, none rejected infant baptism. See Wall, V. 1, p. 497 
— 515. With such evidence of the universal practice of 
infant baptism in the primitive church, the editor of the 
Christian Observer — a work of great merit, published in 
England, was safe when he wrote the following; "We 
challenge the opponents of infant baptism to produce one 
single instance for the first thousand years of christian- 
ity i of any writer that has left it on record as his opinion 
that infant baptism is not lawful to be practiced ; some 
few declared heretics excepted, who rejected water bap- 
tism altogether." See Eell's Conversation on Bap. p. 42, 
And equally safe is the position of Dr. Worcester, when he 
affirms that, s( For more than 3000 years" (referring to the 
period, from the days of Abraham, to the rise of the Pe- 
trobrussians, A. D. 1130) "the seal of the covenant teas 
universally applied to the seed of the church ; No one for- 
bidding it." Two Sermons, foe. p. 57. Even Menno, 
the founder of an anabaptist sect called Mennonites, who 
flourished about 380 years ago, acknowledged that " infant 
baptism had been in use from the apostles' time. But he 
said that the false apostles were the authors of it." Wall V. 
2, p. 301. In fact, the first sect ever known, or recorded 
in history, that admitted water baptism, yet denied the 
lawfulness of infant baptism, were the Petrobrussians, ib, 
V. 1, p. 514. 

CORRUPTIOxNS and PERVERSIONS. 

We cannot do justice to ourselves, and the cause of 
truth, without briefly noticing the progress of this discus- 
sion : — the ways and means employed by our opponents to 
disprove infant baptism and establish the opposite system. 
In performing this task, we shall endeavor, as far as pos- 



232 INFANT BAPTISM. 

sible to give our reader authorities, without note or com- 
ment. Our opponents many times make a great display 
of Pedobaptist writers, so quoted, as to teach what they 
never believed, or intended to express. This torturing 
process was first introduced by xlbram Booth, the great 
apostle of the English Baptist church ; and has since be- 
come the standard method of reasoning. Every new book 
upon this subject, teems with what are denominated " Con- 
cessions of Pedobaptist writers :" whose very names prove 
that they we perverted, when called to support doctrines 
which they never believed or taught. As many of our 
readers mnj not have the means of consulting these wri- 
ters, we will give a few specimens of the manner of quoting 
them, reserving the complete " Expose" for a separate 
number. 

The first example, we will give from Mr. Booth's " Pedobaptism 
Examined ;" Part*2, chap. 1, where Mr. Baxter is quoted to disprove 
infant baptism." Mr. Baxter. " If there can be no example given 
in scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a 
saving faith, nor any precept for so doing, then must we not baptize 
any without it. But the antecedent is true ; therefore so is the con- 
sequent .. . in a word, 1 know of no one word in scripture that 
giveth us the intimation that ever man was baptized without the 
profession of saving faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to 
baptize any upon another's faith." Fengilly, Jewett, Woolsey, &c. 
quote it from Booth. 

Now what are the facts in the case ? Why Mr. Baxter 
wrote against the common practice in his day of giving the 
sacraments to unconverted men ; wherein he takes the 
ground, that " saving faith" must precede the baptism of 
such ; — a doctrine common to all evangelical churches in 
every age. So Mr. Booth, in making out his compliment 
of ki Pedobaptist witnesses," quotes Mr. Baxter, as teach- 
ing that " the profession of saving faith" " must always 
precede baptism ;" without even hinting that Baxter was 
speaking of adults, and had no reference whatever to in- 
fants :— thus compelling Baxter to give testimony against 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 233 

infant baptism. Had Mr. Booth simply said, " Such are 
Mr. Baxter's views upon the subject of adult baptism," the 
reader would not have been deceived, and Mr. Booth's long 
quotation would have proved just nothing relative to in- 
fants. But by leaving this fact out of sight, the distinguish- 
ed Mr. Baxter is made the advocate of exclusive " believer's 
baptism." Were Mr. Baxter the oniy perverted author, a 
few words might accomplish our task ; but scores of Pedo- 
baptist writers, are quoted by our opponents in the same 
manner. This charge may appear severe, but if our baptist 
friends will have a little patience, we promise to do them 
the justice, either to prove, or renounce it. Says Dr. Wall, 
" In short, they (anti-pedobaptists) have in this matter dealt with 
those ancient authors, just as they did lately with Mr. Baxter; who 
being busy in writing something in defence of infant baptism, heard 
the hawkers cry under his window, " Mr. Baxter's arguments for 
Believer's baptism, &c. being a pamphlet of collections taken out .of 
some of Mr. Baxter's works, wherein he speaking of the terms of the 
baptismal covenant, had shown the necessity of a justify-ino- faith in 
order to baptism, though in the same books lie had dedareoFke spoke 
in reference to adult persons only. On which occasion, Mr. Bax- 
ter says " the men that cite authors at this rate, cite me ao-ainst my- 
self with like confidence." Wall, V. 2. p. 3, 4. AJso Baxter's 
" More Proof of Infant Baptism." p. 414. 

Now while our opponents are quoting Baxter agmnst 
infant baptism, by representing him a s teaching the dx>e- 
trine that " saving faith" raust precede baptism, it is noto- 
rious that Baxter was a most efficient and decided advo- 
cate for infant baptism. In proof we will quote from Dr. 
EL Hairs excellent work. 

44 The hottest controversy which Mr. Baxter ever had was with the 
baptists, A Mr. Tombes had written a book against infant baptism, 
and thought Baxter was ■ the chief hinderer' of its success. Though 
says Mr. Baxter ' I never meddled with that point ' « He had,* say* 
Mt. Baxter, * so high a conceit of his writings, that he thought them 
unanswerable, and that none could deal with them in that way. . 
At last somehow he urged me to give my judgment of them : when 
1 let him know they did not satisfy me to be of his mind, but went 
no farther with him.' 4 But he unavoidably contrived to bring me 
into the controversy which 1 shunned.' In the end Mr. Baxter agreed 
to hold a public discussion in Mr. Tombes' church, Jan. 1—1640. 



234 



INFANT BAPTISM, 



4 This dispute,' says Mr. Baxter, c satisfied all my own people, and 
the country that came in, and Mr. Tombes' own townsmen, except 
about twenty, whom he had perverted, who gathered into his church, 
which never increased to above twenty-two, that I could learn." 
See Dr. E. Hall's works on Baptism, p. 130 — 1. Also on Baptist 
Er. p. 96. Also " Orme's Life and Times of Baxter," Vol. 2, p. 252. 

Soon after this discussion Baxter published his work, 
entitled, " Plain Scripture Proof of Infant Church 
membership and Baptism." Nineteen years after this 
he published a second volume entitled, " MORE PROOF 
of Infant Church membership," &c. In his writings 
he declares, " God had never a church on earth, of which 
infants were not infant members, since there were infants 
in the world' 1 ' Now after all this, to represent Richard 
Baxter, as maintaining that believers only, or those capable 
of exercising " saving faith," are entitled to baptism, is tru- 
ly " to cite him against himself." We care not to argue 
with those who can believe Baxter guilty of such absurdity. 

We call attention in the next place to Dr. Miller, Prof, 
in Princeton Theol. Sem , who, it would seem, has made 
some *' ; concessions," which the Rev. J. J. Woolsey en- 
deavors to turn to some account in his work against Ped- 
obaptists. We will give a specimen of his mode of rea- 
soning ;- — the substance of which we quote from Dr. Hall 
on Bap. Er. p. 89, 90. Mr. Woolsey says " The validity 
of infant baptism is urged and thought to be established on the ground 
of its being taken for granted, without any express command in the 
New Testament." Under this head he says, " Strange as it may ap- 
pear, the validity of infant baptism is urged on the very ground that 
Baptists reject it. We reject it because not commanded in the bible. 
Tkey hold to it because not commanded, but taken for granted." He 
goes on : — " The silence of the New Testament quite sufficient to 
establish infant baptism ! ! ! How strangely do men reason when 
they want for solid and substantial testimony ! Who could have 
thought that a doctor of divinity should have at this enlightened day 
employed logic so singularly strange and at war with every acknowl- 
edged principle of correct reasoning ! !" "Plead the validity of a 
practice on the around of the entire silence of scripture. What a prin- 
ciple this for Protestants of the nineteenth century." He likens the 
argument to the proceedings of a court, when the accuser fails to 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 235 

bring forward any testimony to establish the charge," — condemning 
a person because there is no evidence against him ; — u Making the 
entire absence of all testimony against you quite sufficient to establish 
the groundless charge." This illustration he pursues to some length, 
and then says, " And yet this is precisely the kind of argument which 
our Pedobaptist brethren employ in justification of infant baptism," 

Perhaps, when Mr. Woolsey tells his people, that Pedo- 
baptists " urge the validity of infant baptism," on the 
" ground of the entire silence of scripture ;" and " hold to 
it because not commanded but taken for granted ;" they 
believe it : but with Pedobaptists such unqualified, whole- 
sale assertions need no refutation ; — they know better. 

But it seems that Mr. Woolsey is chastising a doctor 
of divinity for his " logic ;" and it may be a matter of in- 
terest to know who the unfortunate " doctor" is, and 
whether his " logic," is as bad as represented by Mr. 
Woolsey. Now if our reader will only examine a work, 
entitled ; — " Infant Baptism SCRIPTURAL and rea- 
sonable : &c. By Samuel Miller, D. D." pages 17. 37, 
38, he will see this " doctor of divinity" is Prof. Miller of 
Princeton Theol. Seminary, N. J. And as to the charac- 
ter of his " logic" we will give a specimen in his own 
propositions by which he clearly demonstrates the divine 
right of infant church membership and baptism. 

1. " Because in all Jehovah's covenants with his professing people, 
their infant seed have been included." 

2. " The close and endearing connection between parents and chil- 
dren, affords a strong argument in favor of the church membership 
of the infant seed of believers." 

3. " The actual and acknowledged church membership of infants 
under the Old Testament economy is a decisive index of the divine 
will in this matter." 

4. " It is equally certain that the church of God is the same in sub- 
stance now that it was then" 

5. " If infants were once members , and if the church remains the 
same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some positive en- 
actment EXCLUDING THEM CAN EE FOUND." 

6. " Baptism has come in the room of circumcision . . . and the for- 
mer is rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the 
latter." 

2! 



236 INFANT BAPTISM. 

7. " We find the principle of family baptism, again and again adopt- 
ed in the apostolic age. ,J 

8. " We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant 
membership, to which all the first christians had been so long accus- 
tomed, COULD HAVE BEEN ABRUPTLY WITHDRAWN without WOUnd- 

ing the hearts of parents, and producing in them feelings of revolt 
and complaint against the new economy." 

9. " Although the New Testament does not contain any specific 
texts, which in so many words declare that the infant seed of believers 
are members of the church in virtue of their birth, yet it abounds in 
passages which cannot reasonably be explained but in harmony with 
this doctrine." 

10. " Finally ; the history of the christian church from the apos- 
tolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force in favor of the 
divine authority of infant baptism." 

On pages 37, 38, Dr. Miller considers the objection so 
frequently urged by our opponents, that, " There is no di- 
rect, or express warrant for infant baptism in the New 
Testament." — " The New Testament is silent/' &,c. To 
all this, Mr. Miller replies, that " If it be, as Baptists say, 
that the New Testament is silent on the subject, this very 
silence is quite sufficient to destroy their cause, and estab- 
lish ours. It affords proof positive that no such change as 
that which is alleged ever occurred." Again : " But it 
cannot be admitted that the New Testament contains no 
direct warrant for infant membership" But we leave 
our reader with these facts, to decide as to what degree of 
confidence is due such statements as are made by Mr. 
Woolsey and others relative to " Pedobaptist concessions," 
so far as Dr. Miller is concerned. 

Dr. Wood of Andover Theological Seminary is also put 
down among the " conceders." Mr. Woolsey quotes him 
as follows : " Dr. Wood, an associate of Prof. Stuart, says, 
We have no express precept or example for infant baptism, 
in all our holy writings." The Rev. M. G. Clarke, in 
his work on " Christian Baptism and Church Commu- 
nion," p. 79, quotes as follows ; Dr. Wood in his lectures 
on infant baptism says, " It is a plain case that there is no 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT, 



237 



express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred 
writings. The proof then that infant baptism is a divine in- 
stitution must be made out in another way." Mr. Wood's 
remarks in their proper connection read as follows, " What- 
ever may have been the precepts of Christ, or his apostles 
to those who enjoyed their personal instructions ; it is 
plain, that there is no express precept respecting Infant 
Baptism in our sacred writings. The proof then that In- 
fant Baptism is a divine institution must be made out in 
another way." p. 10. Now suppose we quote Dr. Wood 
a little further, relative to express precepts, and also as to 
what the Scriptures do teach upon this subject. 

Dr. Wood says, " If you apply the remarks which have been made 
to the subject under consideration you will soon be satisfied of the 
truth of the following position ; namely ; that the leant of an express, 
positive command of scripture, that infants should be baptized, is not to 
be considered as a valid objection against infant baptism. Mr. Wood 
afterwards takes the following position : " But I shall now proceed 
to argue the point from the inspired records just as they are. My 
position is, that the scriptures of the New Testament understood accord- 
ing to just rules of interpretation, imply that the children of believers 
are to be baptized.'" p. 17. 43. 

Professor M. Stuart is also quoted by Rev. Messrs. 
Woolsey and Clarke. Prof. Stuart says, " Commands, or 
plain and certain examples in the New Testament, rela- 
tive to it (infant baptism) I do not find. 55 See Clarke on 
Bap. &,c p. 79. 

Now it will be seen, in the use of these quotations, that 
our opponents place a great deal of emphasis upon such 
expressions as the following. — " The New Testament 
does not contain any specific texts ichich in so many words 
declare that the infant seed of believers are members of 
the church : v — " There is no express precept : 5 ' — " No ex- 
press, positive command of scripture : 55 — No " commands, 
or plain and certain examples. 55 Now the question arises, 
what do these writers mean, when they say, that, " there 



238 INFANT BAPTISM. 

is no express precept, — positive command, " &-c. for infant 
baptism ? Why, they mean simply this ; " The New Tes- 
tament does not say," in so many words u Infants shall be 
baptized :" — Or " baptism shall be administered to believ- 
ers in their children" Bat do they mean to concede that 
there is no scriptural warrant, or bible authority for the 
practice of infant baptism ? By no means : for they ex- 
pressly declare, in some form, that there is bible authority 
for the practice, and that " scripture cannot be reasonably 
explained" without admitting the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism : this is so obvious, that our opponents must know it, 
if they read the authors they pretend to quote, for our ed- 
ification. With how much consistency and candor then, 
are such men as Baxter, Miller, Wood and Stuart intro- 
duced, as giving testimony against infant baptism ; — men 
acknowledged, and known among the defenders of this 
faith ! ! 

But our opponents should be the last class of objectors 
to make such a display of " concessions/' relative to " pos- 
itive commands," and express precepts for every doctrine 
and practice. Where is their positive command for put- 
ting the infant seed of God's people out of the church, after 
God, by solemn covenant put them in the church ? where 
is their " express" precept for exclusive immersion ? where 
is their command, or plain and certain examples for close 
communion; — for excluding the people of God from the 
Lord's table, when the sacrament is dispensed in a Baptist 
Church ? Where is the express precept for female commu- 
nion ? Will they candidly admit that there is no positive 
commands, — or express precepts, in so many words, teach- 
ing all this? If not, then give us the " specific texts;"— 
The positive, unequivocal law. 

Many other examples might be introduced, illustrating 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 239 

the manner in which Pedobaptists are quoted to disprove 
the doctrine of infant baptism. But we will defer this 
branch of our subject, and now present the reader with a 
few specimens from Church History. Our opponents 
have always found the History of Infant Baptism, a difficult 
point to manage. According to their own confessions, 
the practice is very ancient ; at least " 1500 years old, and 
perhaps," says Mr. Campbell, " a few years older." Now 
to concede such antiquity to Pedobaptism, seems to im- 
pose the necessity of establishing some claims for antiqui- 
ty to the Ardipedobaptist system ; hence, history is ex- 
plored, the creeds of different sects are sought, and old 
authors quoted, to prove that the system of our opponents 
is of very ancient date. But the manner of establishing 
this claim is mainly the question under consideration. 

As an example, listen to William Jones, the Baptist Historian, who 
quotes Mosheim in the following manner; " Before the rise of Lu- 
ther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of 
Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the 
modern Dutch Baptists." See Jones' Ch. His. Vol. 2, p. 92. Mr. 
Jones refers to Mosheim's Eccles. His. Cent. 16, Sect. 3, pt. 2, ch. 3. 

Now admit the quotation to be genuine, and it proves 
nothing for our opponents ; unless all sects are ancient 
that existed before the time of Luther and Calvin. But 
what is worse, this pretended quotation turns out to be a 
gross perversion. We have vosheim's Eccl. His. laying 
before us, open at the very Cent. Sect. chap, and part re- 
ferred to by Mr. Jones, but can find nothing about " Dutch 
Baptists" or any other opposers of infant baptism, " who 
lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe." 
Mosheim's language is as follows : " Before the rise of 
Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of 
Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Ger- 
many, many persons, who adhered tenaciously to the following doc- 
trine, which the Waldenses, Wickliffites and Hussites had maintain 

21* 



240 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ed, some in a more disguised, and others in a more open and public 
manner, viz. That the kingdom of Christ, or the visible church he 
had established upon earth, was an assembly of true and real saints, 
and ought therefore to be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous ; 
and also exempt from all those institutions, which human prudence 
suggests to oppose the progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform 
transgressors." Comment is unnecessary. 

But, perhaps Mr. Jones, or some of his apologists will 
endeavor to escape the charge of " perversion," by urging 
the assumption, that the Waldenses, Wickliffites and Hus- 
sites resemble the " Modern Dutch Baptists." This 
leads us to consider another example of Mr, Jones' can- 
dor and fairness, as a historian. We make the following 
extract from Dr. Rice's Debate with Mr. Alexander 
Campbell, pages 404, 405. The extract is the more valu- 
able, since the learned and ingenious Mr. Campbell, 
armed and equipped for the conflict, as he was, could only 
say ; " As to Mr. Jones and this accusation, I have noth- 
ing to say at this moment." 

" Mr. Campbell and other anti-pedobaptists, have claimed the Wal- 
denses and Albigenses, (those witnesses for God and the truth in 
the dark ages, when Christianity seemed almost lost from the earth) 
as anti-Pedobaptists." 

This claim is set up by Mr. Jones, the Baptist histori- 
an, of whose history Mr. Campbell has spoken in the high- 
est terms ; yet in his account of the Waldenses, though 
quoting avowedly from Perrin's history, he left out every 
thing that squinted at infant baptism ! Perrin was a de- 
scendant from these people, and he took the pains to visit 
them, and obtained their confessions of faith, and other 
books and documents, from which he wrote their history. 
Their enemies (the Roman priests) did charge them with 
denying the baptism of infants ; and Mr. Jones published 
the charge, as if it were undoubtedly true. In reply to it, 
John Paul Perrin, their historian thus remarks : — (Book 
1, ch. 4, p. 15.) 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 241 

u The fourth calumnie was touching baptisrae, which it is said, 
they (Waldenses) denied to little infants; but from this imputation 
they quit themselves as followeth : — The time and place of those 
that are to be baptized is not ordained, but the charitie and edifi- 
cation of the church and congregation must serve for a rule there- 
in, &c. ; and therefore they to whom the children were nearest 
allied, brought their infants to be baptized, as their parents, or any 
other whom God hath made charitable in that kind." 

Again (Perrin's book 1, chap. 6, p. 30. 31.) 

" King Lewis Xll, having been informed by the enemies of the 
"Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of many grievous crimes, which 
were imposed [charged] upon them, sent to make inquisition in those 
places, the Lord Adam Sumee, Maister of Requests, and a doctor of 
Sorbon, called Parne, who was his confessor. They visited all the 
parishes and temples, and found neither images, nor so much as the 
least show of any ornaments belonging to their masses and ceremo- 
nies of the church of Rome, much lesse any such crimes as were im- 
posed [charged] upon them ; but rather that they kept their sabbathes 
duely, causing their children to be baptized according to the order of 
the 'primitive church, teaching them the articles of the christian faith 
and the commandments of God." 

" Now let us see how faithfully the historian, Mr. Jones, who has 
been recommended by my friend, has quoted Perrin." (Jones' Ch. 
His. p. 348.) Or London Ed. Vol. 2, p. 74. 

" Louis XII king of France being informed by the enemies of the 
Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that sev- 
eral crimes were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests 
and a certain doctor of the Sorbornne, who was confessor to his maj- 
esty, to make inquiry into the matter. On their return, they report- 
ed that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had in- 
spected their places of worship, but that they had found there no 
images, nor signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any 
ef the ceremonies of the Romish Church : much less could they dis- 
cover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. 
On the contrary, they kept the sabbath day, observed the ordinance 
of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed their children 
in the articles of the christian faith, and the commandments of God." 
Joachim Camerarius in his History, p. 352 ; quoted by Perrin, book 
], chap. 5. 

u Here," says Dr. Rice, " Mr. Jones, when he came to infant bap- 
tism, wholly omitted it; and instead of saying, as did the author he 
quoted,—' causing their children to be baptized'— he says ' observed 
the ordinance of baptism according to the primitive church' ! ! ! 
Thus the Waldenses are proved to be anti-Pedobaprists, by conceal- 
ing their testimony. A more glaring falsification of history 1 never 
saw," &c. 

Thus the reader may see, how easy it is to prove a point, 

simply by leaving out, or putting in a few words, as may 



242 INFANT BAPTISM. 

suit the case in hand. Another way still is, to quote so 
much of an author as is favorable to a certain position, and 
then stop short in the record without disclosing the real 
object or sentiments of the author. In this way Mr. A. 
Campbell quotes Mosheim when arguing the antiquity of 
the Anabaptists. Mr. Campbell says : 

" Even the greatest enemy, among ecclesiastic historians, Dr. 
Mosheim, is constrained to say Vol. 4, page 424. The TRUE ORI- 
GIN of that sect which ACQUIRED the denomination of Anabap- 
tists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism, to those that 
came over to their communion, and derived the name of Mennonites 
from the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of their 
present felicity is HID in the REMOTE DEPTHS of antiquity and 
is of consequence difficult to be ascertained." Debate with McCal- 
la, page 379. 

Here Mr. Campbell ends his quotation, leaving the read- 
er to guess what period of the world is intended by " the 
remote depths of antiquity." Had Mr. Campbell quoted 
a few lines more, it would have exploded all of his high 
claim, so far as Mosheim is concerned. Mosheim reads 
as follows. " The true origin of that sect which acquired 

the denomination of Anabaptists by their administering anew the 
rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and de- 
rived that of Mennonites the famous man to whom they owe the great- 
est part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiqui- 
ty, and is of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained. This 
uncertainty will not appear surprising, when it is considered, that 
this sect started up all of a sudden in several countries, at the same 
point of time, under leaders of different talents, and different inten- 
tions, and at the very period when the first contests of the reformers 
with the Roman pontiffs drew the attention of the world, and em- 
ployed the pens of the learned, in such a manner as to render ai! 
other objects and incidents almost matters of indifference." Mos- 
heim, Vol. 3, p. 321— Ed. by Maclaine. 

In this same unjust, and unjustifiable manner Mr. Rob- 
ert Robinson, in his History of Baptism, p. 427, 428, pro- 
ceeds, when he quotes Dr. Mosheim, as authority, for say- 
ing, that the " Waldenses, the Wickliffites, the Hussites, 
the Baptists, and many more, who, before the dawn of 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 243 

the reformation, held to the same principles, and were re- 
markable for the same peculiarities.'' " These'' says 
Robinson, " are nearly the words of Dr. Mosheim." Now 
the reader need only turn to Mosheim's His. Vol. 3, p. 
322, and he will see that Mosheim is most grossly pervert- 
ed : — Indeed, there is not a particle of evidence that Mos- 
heim even alludes to infant baptism ; much less argues 
the position assumed by Mr. Robinson, of exclusive adult 
baptism as the grand peculiarity of the Waldenses, &c. 

In this way Mr. Joseph Stennet, an English baptist of 
some note, proves that " Gundulphus and his followers, 
who being examined by the Bishop of Cambray at a sy- 
nod in the year 1025, denied that baptism was profitable 
to infants, and stated their reasons against baptizing them." 
" Here he stopped," says Dr. Reed, " omitting that part 
of their confession which did not suit his purpose viz., 
These men at the same examination, being further inter- 
rogated, confessed that they thought water baptism of no 
use or importance to any one, infants or adults" Wall 
V. 2, p. 263, Reed's Apology p. 294. 

Says Dr. Hall, " In the same manner, in this work by c Pengilly,' 
published by the Baptist General Tract Society as the • Scripture 
Guide to Baptism,' the names of such men as Doddridge, Baxter, 
Er shine, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Saurin, Guyse, Charnock, are ar- 
rayed as if against us in the particulars in which we differ from our 
Baptist brethren. Take the names from the book, and the quotations 
annexed to them, and the book is left a mere lifeless carcase. But 
hear them fully : hear them truly : and do they stand against us ? 
Could they come up from the dead in the midst of this community, 
to a man they would wend their way to these walls for the truth and 
order which they held as established by the word of God. To a man 
they would lift up their voices for the ordinances which now their 
names are made to impugn. They would cry out upon the injustice 
done to their memories, and the truth, by these attempts to cast the 
weight of their names against what they taught and practiced as the 
truth and ordinances of God." Hall on Bap. p. 132. 

To Dr. Hall's catalogue of names, might be added mul- 
titudes of others, equally conspicuous in history, as believ- 
ers and defenders of our faith : — a " cloud of witnesses" 



244 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



for infant baptism ; but who are introduced as impugners 
of their own faith, testifying, as our opponents would have 
the world believe, against their own unscriptural practices ! 
Yes ; we are gravely informed, that learned Pedobap- 
tist writers of different ages, doctors, and professors of 
divinity, historians and bible critics, admit, that there is 
neither bible precept, example, nor primitive history for 
their practice ! ! Surely, if this were true, the " admis- 
sions," and " concessions" of such men would scarcely 
be worth recording as testimony ! 

The work of perverting Pedobaptist writers began in 
England, and was carried on chiefly by Abram Booth, 
Gale, Stennet, Tombes and Danvers. The latter, Mr. 
Danvers, made himself so notorious in this department of 
discussion, that Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Wills publicly chal- 
lenged him for a forger of quotations ; and Wills put in 
an appeal to his own party against him." Wall V. 2, p. 11. 

Dr. Wall says, " It would have been a very tedious thing, both to 
me and the reader, to recite all such quotations and then shew the 
falseness, or mistakes of them. But instead of doing that, 1 do de- 
clare that all that 1 have seen, that seemed to be to the purpose, 1 
have searched; and the search after such as have proved false, spu- 
rious, &c. has cost me as much pains, as the collecting of the true 
ones." ib. p. 11. 

Had the works of Wall, Baxter and Wills, on the sub- 
ject of infant baptism, been extensively published in this 
country, comparatively few of these pretended extracts, 
called " Pedobaptist concessions" would have found their 
way into a second edition. But multitudes continue to 
hear and quote these " concessions'' from Pedobaptists, 
because once published by such men as Messrs. Booth, 
Gale, &c. and they have never yet met with an expose of 
such perversions. Indeed, the works of Booth and Gale 
upon this subject, have been text-books for quotations and 
extracts from Pedobaptists. 



NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 245 

Pengilly's little tract of 60 pages — " Scripture Guide," 
contains near 40 references to Booth. The result is, the 
readers of Pengilly are called to believe much respecting 
Pedobaptist writers, that has long since been exploded. 
And the same is true in regard to every other author, who 
has gone to Booth, Gale, &c. for their materials where- 
with to oppose infant baptism. 

Before closing this branch of our subject, we must 
briefly notice Dr. Neander, and his Church History. It 
would seem, that the Rev. Williard Judd, when publish- 
ing his " Review of Stuart," considered the opinion of 
Neander, so important to the completion of his work, that 
he addressed him a letter of inquiry respecting the mode 
and subjects of baptism. Says Mr. Judd; " As an eccle- 
siastical historian, it is supposed, that there is not his superior. 
Though as a Pedobaptist, he attempts to justify the practice of in- 
fant baptism and sprinkling, yet he frankly admits that the former is 
wholly destitute of scriptural authority ; and that the latter vms un- 
known IN THE HISTORY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES." Judd's 

Review, p. 193. 

Now strange as it may appear, in Neander's letter, in 
reply to Mr. JudoVs inquiries, speaking of Irenaeus, he 
says, " Most probably, therefore, we find here the first 
trace of infant baptism." — And again speaking of Tertul- 
lian he says, " Some ten years later (i. e. after Irenaeus) 
however, an eminent doctor, Tertullian of Carthage, raises 
his voice against infant baptism," &.c. We will leave 
Mr. Judd to explain, how " the trace of infant baptism 
could be found," and how " doctor Tertullian could raise 
his voice against it;" if infant baptism " was unknown in 
the history of the primitive churches ! /" According to 
Dr. Neander's own showing, Irenaeus wrote only 77 years 
after the apostolic age, and Tertullian 87 ; and both speak 
of the practice of infant baptism then in use in the church. 



246 INFANT BAPTISM. 

True, Neander undertakes to account for the rise of 
infant baptism in the primitive church ; but we consider 
his mere opinion of little weight, compared with the ex- 
press declaration of some of the early fathers, that infant 
baptism rested upon apostolic authority. As to the idea 
advanced by Neander, in his Church History, p. 199 ; that 
the opposition of Tertullian is " proof that infant baptism 
was not then usually considered as an apostolic ordinance, 
for in that case he would hardly have ventured to speak so 
strongly against it ;" we need only reply, Tertullian also 
spake strongly against the baptism of young and unmar- 
ried persons. Will Messrs. Neander, Judd and others, 
admit that the baptism of young and unmarried persons 
was contrary to apostolic practice? " Great men are not 
always wise !" 

Dear Reader : We must here conclude our present 
number : — The Lord will, we intend to address you again 
so soon as circumstances will admit, and offer a few things, 
" new and old," which must now be omitted. We now 
commend to your candor, and prayerful consideration, 
what we have written upon this vastly important subject. 
We submit these pages with the humble prayer, that they 
may guide and confirm you in the faith delivered to 
the saints ; and assist you in the duties involved. Fear 
not to trust God's " everlasting covenant, to a thousand 
generations," and which promises, " I will be a God unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee." Fear not to bring and 
consecrate your infant seed to that Saviour, who " took 
little children in his arms, and said, Suffer them to come 
unto me ;" for surely he will not forbid them, nor be " dis- 
pleased" with those who bring them. Be faithful to God, 
and your covenant vows, and the blessings of faithful 
Abraham shall come upon you through Jesus Christ. 



COMMUNION OF SAINTS, 



OR 



SEVENTEEN REASONS 



FOR NOT BECOMING A 



CLOSE COMMUNION BAPTIST, 



IN ANSWER TO THE INQUIRY OF 



A FEW CONVERTS. 

. ^L^Jl. 

BY REV. R? H. CONKLIN. 



This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 

Jesus Christ. 

Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cau?e divisions and offences, 
contrary to the doctrines which ye have learned, and avoid them. Paul. 

£G— If I am wrong, convince me— If I am right, believe me. -S5 



PROVIDENCE: 

PRINTED BY M. B. YOUNG, 

No. 4 Union Buildings. 
1853. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 

Strykersville, March 27, 1851. 
Rev. R. H. Conklin, 

Dear Sir : — Since you acknowledge baptism by 
immersion valid, why not adopt it as the exclusive mode and become a Close 
Communion Baptist, and thus end all controversy on this subject? Will 
you please write out your reasons for not doing so, and give us the privilege, 
if we choose, of showing them to others. 

The wishes of a few young Converts. 
Respectfully, yours, 

CLINTON WOODRUFF, 
ANDREW TAYLOR, 
AUGUST1N BALDWIN, 
ANDREW MASON. 



North Java, April 3, 1851. 
Dear Brethren: 

Your letter of inquiry finds me in the midst of an in- 
teresting revival of religion — weary and worn with constant labor and but 
little time for the discussion of questions, such as are proposed in your letter. 
But a sincere desire of vindicating and r.romoting gospel truth and order, 
and also a respectful regard for your " wishes," induces me to comply with 
your request, and offer a few brief "reasons" for my "faith and practice." 
And since God has graciously permitted me to labor in the Gospel for your 
salvation, so may I now labor for your confirmation in sound doctrine, and 
your future usefulness in life. I will only add : " Search the Scriptures dili- 
gently," and if my " reasons" accord with the testimony and word of God, 
then abide by them ; and may the " Love of Christ " constrain you to live and 
walk accordingly. 

Yours affectionately, 

R. H. CONKLIN. 



REASONS. 



Sometimes it is said, that those denominations that practice 
different modes of baptism, discard immersion because it is 
less convenient, and more self-denying and crossing to hu- 
man nature ; while sprinkling, pouring, washing, &c, ac- 
cord better with comfort, ease, and popularity. It is quite 
possible that there are some who thus regard immersion, and 
reject it for no better reasons. 

The piety of such, we should regard in much the same 
light, as the piety of those who set up an exclusive claim to 
self denial, based upon the mere mode of administering di- 
vine ordinances. So far as I am personally concerned, did 
our Saviour require it, I could be immersed every day in 
the year, and much of the time should count it a luxury, in- 
stead of a self-denial. ' 

But to be rigid and self denying in regard to a single duty, 
or supposed duty, while we are no more self denying and con- 
secrated to God, in other respects, than our neighbors, is not 
the most conclusive evidence of a better faith ! He that 
(< tithes the mint, the anise, and cummin, 11 to preserve his con- 
sistency, should be careful and not " omit the iveightier mat- 
ters," such as "judgment, mercy, and faith." 

But the real question now persented for our consideration, 
is not, whether immersion requires more self denial, or is 
even the better mode of baptism. No: you inquire, " why 
not adopt it as the exclusive mode, and become a Close Com- 



munion Baptist, and thus end all controversy upon this sub- 
ject ?" As this is quite a common question, I will now 
proceed to offer, briefly as possible, some of my "reasons'* 
for a different course. 

1. I dare not become a Close Communion Baptist by 
adopting such a course, because I must then virtually admit, 
and to be consistent prove, that immersion, total immersion, 
and nothing but immersion, is Christian baptism : while all 
who practice other modes, do so wholly without authority, 
and in opposition to the revealed will and instruction of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

Now if I should assume that immersion only is baptism, I 
know not how to prove it, since I find neither command, pre- 
cept, or example to confirm it. Indeed the word immersion is 
not to be found in the Bible ! Nor is plunge, or dip ever used 
in connection with the ordinance of Christian baptism. — 
Should I affirm, as some have done, that the Greek word for 
baptize, signifies immersion, and immersion only, then I must 
do so in opposition to the decision of a vast majority of the 
intelligent and learned world. So well advised of this fact 
was the distinguished Dr. Carson, of England, one of the 
most talented ministers of the Baptist Church, that when en- 
deavoring to prove that baptizo always signifies immersion, 
he frankly confesses that " All the Lexicographers and Com- 
mentators are against him in that opinion" See Cox & Car- 
son, p. 79. 

Such a concession, while it does honor to the character and 
candor of Dr. Carson, exhibits also the presumption or ignor- 
ance of such, as claim the learned worlds in favor of immer- 
sion. I have consulted between twenty and thirty different 
Lexicons upon this subject, not one of which gives dip, 
plunge, or immerse, as the exclusive meaning of baptizo. 

Now as our Saviour has enjoined no express mode, but 



Simply the ordinance of baptism, I dare not adopt an exclu- 
sive mode, lest I change the importance from the ordinance to 
the mere mode of observing it. Should our Baptist brethren 
insist that the examples recorded in the New Testament, 
when considered in connection with the language and cir- 
cumstances, prove that immersion was the original mode of 
baptism, I simply reply : some of the examples recorded 
may seem to favor such an opinion, while many others dis- 
approve the idea of immersion, thus leaving us to conclude 
that the sacred writers attached no special importance to the 
mode. True, the New Testament writers speak of baptizing 
" in Jordan " and u in the River of Jordan," — of going 
"down into the water, n and of coming u up out of the water," 
of being i: buried with Christ in baptism ;" still none of these 
affirm immersion, — ifthey did then would learned men have 
ceased to controvert them. Every Greek scholar knows that 
the prepositions here rendered "in," "into" and "out of" 
might have been translated " at Jordan " — -" to the water " — 
and " from the water," without violating or changing the 
sense of the original. Indeed, if the reader will only turn 
to the case of the Eunuch, recorded in Acts 8 : 38, 39, he 
will find in that very chapter the word u eis, " " into the 
water," rendered six times "to" and " unto," and only this 
once " into," while the word, " ek " " out of the water " is 
twice as often translated " from " as " out of " in the first 6.vq 
books of the New Testament ; and " apo " used in the case 
of our Saviour, Matt. 3 : 16, five times as often. 

But I ask for no " New Translations," truth requires none. 
The doctrine that cannot rest securely upon our good old 
English version, needs, I apprehend, something more than 
truth to sustain it : hence I dare not espouse it, but prefer to 
leave "in." "into" and "out of" as I find them, however 
they may effect the question in controversy. As they now 



read, it proves nothing conclusive for immersion, since it is 
common among different denominations now to baptize " in 
rivers " and for the candidate to go down " into the water,' 1 
and come " up out of the water," and still no immersion takes 
place. The same might have been true in the days of our 
Saviour, as every candid person must admit 

But had our Saviour designed to teach that any particular, 
or exclusive mode of baptism was necessary, would he have 
left the subject so indefinite that millions of his intelligent, 
honest, sincere, true disciples would mistake or overlook his 
great design, and practice a different form ? To my own 
mind the conclusion is unavoidable, — Jesus never authorized 
an exclusive mode, and for me to insist upon one, would be 
to act without precept, or example ; hence I cannot become a 
Close Communion Baptist. , 

2. I dare not become a Close Communion Baptist by 
adopting immersion as an exclusive mode, because 1 must 
then sometimes deny the true disciples of Christ both 
Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

I was once called to see a dying saint, who had never 
been baptized. She was intelligent, her mind was clear, and 
her hope in Christ firm. Her confidence and comfort gave 
evidence that the giace and spirit of God sustained her soul, 
and gave visions of future glory. But one thing lay with 
weight upon her heart, — she had never been baptized, and she 
now felt solemnly impressed with the duty, — " Repent and 
be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins." Was it the work of the adver- 
sary ; or the Spirit of God urging this dying disciple to make 
a profession of her faith in Jesus by receiving his baptism ? 
Never shall I forget that scene — that calm expression — that 
sweet composure which seemed entirely to possess her soul 
immediately on receiving from my hand the Christian ordi- 



nance. My own soul, in the act of administration, cherished 
the assurance that God ratified the solemn transaction, and 
gave a double unction of his Spirit to sustain her in this 
eventful hour. 

But, according to the theory that immersion only is baptism, 
and must always, in the order of time, " precede the Lord's 
Supper," we must deny both to all such as may be savingly 
converted to God upon a death-bed. Yes: souls redeemed 
by the blood of Christ, and regenerated by his Spirit, and 
just ready to enter the mansions of eternal glory, may ask 
the ministers of our condescending and compassionate Sa- 
viour, for that baptism which points to moral cleansing, and 
for those symbols which point to the broken body and shed 
blood of the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world ; n but all in vain ! the cold, comfortless response must 
be given, — u You are too late — the spiritual benefits of those 
ordinances are denied you ! " Laying aside for a moment, all 
mere human creeds, — " all traditions of men," and religious 
dogmas, I ask, is such the genius and spirit of that holy reli- 
gion which affirms " mercy rather than sacrifice 1 '' to be one 
of its cardinal distinguishing characteristics ? I dare not, 
nay I cannot believe it ; hence, I cannot adopt either the the- 
ory , or practise of exclusive immersion ; therefore I cannot 
abandon my present faith and become a close communion 
Baptist. 

3. I dare not build up division walls in the Church of 
Christ upon mere inferences. 

First : Our Baptist brethren infer that Christian baptism is 
an indispensable qualification, or pre-requisite for the Lord's 
Supper. Hence, none however, holy, or pre-eminently devot- 
ed to God, are permitted to approach the table of our Lord, 
with them, and receive the symbols of his broken body and 
shed blood, unless first baptized in water. Secondly : Our 



8 

Baptist brethren infer that total immersion wider water is in- 
dispensable to the ordinance of Christian baptism. Now 
upon these two inferences, the great division toall of Close 
Communion is reared. I say inferences, because our breth- 
ren can neither know or prove that either position is certainly 
true. 

I am fully aware that our Baptist brethren express them- 
selves with much confidence upon this subject : still very 
iew of them I apprehend claim to know the truth beyond all 
doubt. Very few I apprehend, would make oath to the truth- 
fulness of their creeds upon these points! But why not; if 
there is no reasonable doubt — no just ground of controversy. 
Our opponents may believe, — most firmly believe, and speak 
very confidently, and still admit the possibility of being mis- 
taken. Should any lay claim to absolute knowledge, I would 
like to inquire, how such knowledge has been obtained. — 
First : do such claim superior learning and ability to in- 
vestigate successfully the sacred oracles of truth? Second- 
ly: or do they claim to be more honest and impartial 
in their investigations than others ? Thirdly: or do they 
claim that God has favored them with more light than other 
Christians enjoy ? I confess, to my own mind it would not 
appear very humble or modest, to assume either of these posi- 
tions and still I see not how our Baptist brethren can avoid it, 
without admitting just what we claim, viz : that Christians of 
other denominations stand an equal chance with themselves 
for obtaining a knowledge of the mind and will of God upon 
the subject of gospel baptism. To differ, therefore, with 
our brethren, argues neither ignorance, dishonesty ', or spiritual 
darkness and error. 

I have said, that our Close Communion Baptist brethren 
infer that Christian baptism must precede, or is a pre requisite 
for the Lord's Supper. I do not deny the propriety of main- 



taining this order in the administration of the ordinance, as a 
general rule, in the Christian church. But I do deny, and 
challenge proof to the contrary, that the Lord Jesus Christ 
ever ordained a Law in Zion requiring baptism before the 
Lord's Supper, or making it a condition or pre-requisite for 
the Supper. That baptism ordinarily preceded is quite pro- 
bable, since it was generally administered immediately in 
connection with a declaration of faith in Christ, and conse- 
quently before there was any opportunity of celebrating the 
Supper. But who can point us to Divine authority for this 
order, as the changeless, undeviating Lata of the church of 
Christ? Who will affirm and undertake to prove, that even 
the Apostles received Christian baptism, i. e. baptism in 
the name of the sacred Trinity, before they ever observed 
the Lord's Supper ? Indeed, baptism in the name of the 
Trinity was never instituted until after the institution of the 
Lord's Supper. If we are told that the Apostles were pre- 
viously baptized by John, then I need only refer to the fact, 
that individuals baptized by John, were re-baptized under the 
gospel dispensation, by the Apostle Paul, as may be seen in 
Acts 19: 1,7: thus proving that John's baptism was not 
Christian baptism, because not in the name of the Father; 
Son, and Holy Spirit. In further confirmation of this posi- 
tion, I may urge, that the re-baptisms mentioned Acts 19, 
must have occurred some twenty-five years after the institu- 
tion of the Lord's Supper. Now is it probable that these in- 
dividuals had been " disciples " so many years, and yet had 
never once complied with our Lord's command, " This do in 
remembrance of me ? " With all deference to the opinions 
of our brethren, I infer, they had many times observed the 
Lord's Supper, without Christian baptism. 

The Spirit of the gospel is, " mercy and not sacrifice." — 
Indeed, such has been the spirit of the Divine economy in 



10 

every age of the world. As an illustration of the principle 
take the Ritual Dispensation of the Old Testament. The 
Law of rites was exact and specific, and did not submit duty 
to human discretion, or mere expediency. But the spirit of 
that Law was " mercy and not sacrifice " Hence David, and 
those that were with him, in extreme circumstances could in- 
nocently " enter into the house of God and eat the shew- 
bread," although unlawful to do so. 1 Sam., 21: 6 — Matt., 
12 : 4, And under the reign of king Hezekiah, many of 
the Jews came to the feast of unleavened bread, and did eat 
of the passover, though ceremonially unclean and legally dis- 
qualified. Yet God ratified and accepted the offering : 2 
Chron., 30. So the Israelites in the wilderness, on account 
of the great inconvenience attending the rite of circumcision, 
wholly omitted it, although a u token " of God's everlasting 
covenant with his people. And even the Moral Code, while 
it declares, on the Sabbath " thou shall not do any work" — 
still u works of mercy" maybe done even on the Sabbath 
day. 

But is the gospel dispensation in its ceremonial arrange- 
ments, more intolerant and inexorable than the Hebrew 
Code ? Does it demand, and accept of nothing but exact, and 
perfect conformity to the letter? When God requires us to 
receive a weaker brother, is the condition, under all circum- 
stances, that he observe neither more nor less than the exact 
prescribed forms of the church 1 Did Paul act on this prin- 
ciple when he circumcised Timothy to satisfy the Jews? — 
Let the stickler for the exact literal, answer, not from infer- 
ence, but absolute knowledge. 

I will not question the wisdom or propriety of the general 
usuage of the church upon this subject : nor advocate the 
right of individuals to live out of all church connection, and 
still enjoy all the privileges of those in the church. Eut 



11 

I must protest against dividing the household of faith, and 
binding good men's consciences upon mere inferences. I con- 
tend for a principle and offer the scriptural precedent to prove 
that even where the form of duty was prescribed, still cir- 
cumstances justified a departure from the general rule. 

Now so far as the nature and design of the Lord's Supper 
is concerned, I maintain that any intelligent Christian, in the 
exercise of gospel faith, can look through the symbols of 
bread and wine and discern the broken body and shed blood of 
our Lord : and having done this in " remembrance of 
Christ," i. e. ate and drank the sacramental bread and 
win.e, he has, according to the original design, celebrated the 
Lord's Supper. Whether baptism was before or after would 
add nothing to his spiritual discernment, or faithful remem- 
brance • therefore could not be an indispensable pre-requi* 
site, or qualification for the Supper. 

Secondly : That our Baptist brethren infer the mode of bap- 
tism, is just as certain, as that they do not know, and conse- 
quently could not unqualifiedly testify, or affirm to the truth 
of their position. But will our brethren first infer the order 
of the Supper, and then infer the mode of baptism, and then 
exclude us because wq do not infer and practice according to 
their inferences 1 Can such be the law and order of Christ's 
church ? Is such the law and condition of fellowship among 
the disciples of Jesus ? I can n°ver believe it; therefore 
dare not adopt it ; hence cannot become a Close Commu- 
nion Baptist. 

4. I dare not divide the Church of Christ upon the mere 
question :— In what way, or mode shall an external ordinance 
be administered ? Even were it conceded, that baptize prop- 
erly means immersion, and that immersion was the common 
mode practised by the Apostles, I should not dare divide 
the disciples of Jesus with the question of mere mode, while 



12 

I had evidence that God equally blessed and prospered those 
who practiced different modes. I should then feel that union 
was more important than mode, and at least, in extreme 
cases, sacrifice the latter , for the former, God's blessing upon 
such, should be both testimony and license in favor of such 
liberty. 

The common meaning of the Greek word " deipnon" is 
supper — an ordinary meal. But when this Greek word is 
applied to the {: LoroVs Supper," do our Baptist brethren in- 
sist upon the original meaning and say nothing short of a 
full supper will answer, because supper means supper, and 
not a morsel of bread and a swallow of wine ? " The 
Lord's Supper was originally celebrated in the evening — in 
an upper room — in a reclining posture — with unleavened 
oread, and the pure juice of the grape, and by the male mem- 
hers of the church only. Yet there is no controversy about 
manner i or mode in regard to this ordinance, although we dif- 
fer in almost every external particular from the practice of 
Christ and the Apostles. Any time and place, with any 
bread, and in any posture accords so far with the views and 
feelings of Christians generally that there is no contention. So 
in the ordinance of baptism — we agree that it must be in the 
name of the Trinity — that water is the proper element, and 
that time and place are of no great consequence, so far as va- 
lidity is concerned. But alas ! the body of Christ must be 
rent with the mere question of mode, u how much water shall 
he used, and how shall it be applied:' The blessed Saviour 
receives all and smiles equally upon all who love him ; but 
many of his professed disciples will not receive and /wZ/# fel- 
lowship all whom Christ receives. A Christian brother may 
satisfy God and his own conscience, so that he enjoys com- 
munion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; still, the mode 
of baptism with a Close Communionist is the indispensable 



13 

condition of full fellowship ! Would a disciple of Jesus ap- 
proach the table of his Lord ? The question is not how ho- 
ly or useful he is, but u have you teen immersed, and do you 
also refrain from communing with all such as have not been 
immersed by some immersed minister of the gospel ? " Such 
is not my standard of Christian fellowship. Whom Christ 
receives I must and will receive, whether baptized in water, 
or with water, or by the Holy Ghost without water : hence I 
cannot become a Close Communion Baptist. 

5. I dare not exalt compliance with a mere external or- 
dinance, above uniform and consistent piety. I have only 
to be immersed by a Close Communion Baptist minister, and 
so live as to escape the discipline of the church, and by virtue 
of the mode of my baptism, I am entitled to rights and priv- 
ileges at the Lord's table, in the Baptist Church, that are 
denied some of the most eminently pious and useful servants 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. I may neglect family religion, 
— the closet — the souls of men, and live a loose, worldly, 
lukewarm, fruitless professor ; while a Methodist or Presby- 
terian brother may be " the salt of the earth" — " the light 
of the world]* — " a living epistle, read and known of all 
men ;" still I am admitted to the Lord's Table, and he is 
rejected, and for the simple reason, J have been immersed 
and he has not. Thus the form of godliness is exalted above 
the power of godliness ! Compliance with an external rite, 
instead of Christian character or moral worth is the basis of 
fellowship. The highest recommendation — even an humble 
walk with God, with all the gifts and graces of the holy gos- 
pel to adorn the Christian character of a brother beloved of 
God, will not satisfy a Close Communionist, " he must be im- 
mersed" But I dare not exalt a single act of a man's life— » 
an act that the vilest may perform, and still be vile, above 
uniform consistent piety, Moral worthy instead of compliance 
2. 



14 

with mere external forms, shall ever be my standard. Weigh 
the whole man, instead of a single act, and you get his moral 
worth as God values him. While he attends to the " mint 
anise and cummin" he must not omit the weightier matters, 
"judgment^ mercy and faith." But attention to "judgment, 
mercy and faith," and the exemplification of all other traits 
of Christian character, without immersion, will not entitle a 
disciple of Christ to a place at the Table of a Close Commu- 
nion Baptist. 

6. Because I cannot believe that the mode of administer- 
ing an ordinance is more important than the union and fel- 
lowship of Christ's true disciples. With me it is a law of 
consistency to put things most important, ^rs£ in order. Ad- 
herence to this rule will unite in one indissoluble bond of 
union the disciples of Jesus, notwithstanding different views 
relative to externals. Suppose we apply this rule by way of 
testing the relative importance of the mode of baptism and 
union of God's people. First : Failing to be immersed does 
not prevent the Christian from enjoying the presence and 
blessing of God. But the spirit of disunion and division does. 
Second : Baptism without immersion does not prevent or 
stop revivals of religion. But disunion and contention 
among Christians does. Third : The mode of baptism 
does not furnish occasion to unbelievers for reproaching the 
religion of Christ. But division does. Fourth: The mode 
of baptism does not place insuperable obstacles in the way of 
the salvation of sinners. But division and strife among breth- 
ren does. I might pursue this train of thought, and illustrate 
the tendency of disunion ; but it is unnecessary, every Chris- 
tian can judge from the feelings of his own heart as to the rela- 
tive importance of the two. Our Lord informs us that a 
" house divided against itself cannot stand/' and that division 
would ruin even the kingdom of Satan. How absurd then 



15 

— yea, profane and ridiculous for men to represent sectarian- 
ism as a benevolent and wise provision of the Almighty for 
the greater purity and extension of our holy religion ! Does 
disunion originate from a good or a bad cause ? If from a 
bad cause, then I ask, is it from above, or beneath — from 
Heaven, or of men? Does a bad tree bring forth good fruit, 
and a corrupt fountain send forth sweet water ? 

Angels are united. Saints in Heaven will be united. — 
Who then will assume that they may be lawfully and righ- 
teously divided on earth ? Yea, that the purity and pro- 
gress of undefiled religion demands it ? I dare offer no such 
apology for the existence of differing, discordant sects, but 
charge their birth and being to the sinfulness of man, rather 
than the wisdom of God. 

But do we hear the inquiry still, " How can the household 
of faith be united ? " I reply: put things of most impor- 
tance first in order, and churches will then cease to exalt 
mere externals, which the vilest may observe, above vital 
godliness. Our Baptist brethren do not pretend that immer- 
sion produces any particular change in moral character, any 
more than baptism by any other mode. Neither do they re- 
gard immersion as certain evidence of piety in the candidate, 
any more than baptism by the application of water to the 
candidate. Nor yet is it claimed that Christians who have 
been baptized by immersion exhibit more of the spirit of 
Christ than other Christians. Why then make the mode of 
baptism a division question, if it is not a condition of salva- 
tion — does not effect a saving change of moral character- — 
is no certain and reliable evidence of piety, and is not follow- 
ed by clearer demonstrations of a living faith than are found 
in the life and practice of those who differ as to the form of 
administration. Hence, believing as I do, that the union 
and fellowship of God's children on earth, is more important 



16 

than any mode of baptism, I dare not adopt an^ exclusive 
mode, which denies a Christian brother or sister a place at 
the table of our Lord, with us : therefore I cannot become 
a Close Communion Baptist. 

7. I dare not sanction a practice which will exclude many 
of the most eminent ministers of Jesus Christ, and the god- 
ly members of their charge, from the Christian church and 
its ordinances for doing what cannot be construed into an im- 
morality. That ail who receive Christ, and are received of 
Christ, have a divine and gospel right to all the means of 
grace and privileges of Christ's church, seems to me so ob- 
vious that proof is wholly unnecessary. Hence to exclude 
them from such privileges for doing what neither offends 
God, nor violates their own consciences, but accord, as they 
conceive, with the Word of God and Christian duty, is lit- 
tle less than waging war with the gospel of Christ. Will 
our Baptist brethren maintain that u mixed Communion " is 
an immorality or sin against God? If so, then all such 
members of Baptist churches as have been guilty of sitting 
down to the Lord's Supper with Episcopalians, Methodists, 
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, &c, must repent and for- 
sake, or finally perish ! I can conceive of no middle ground 
if " mixed Communion " is sinful and excommunication 
for this sin is right, then Christ approves the act, and the 
judgment day will exhibit its ratification and approval. 

But ivill the Lord Jesus Christ as final Judge thus sanction 
the act of excommunication? Do our brethren believe it? 
And are all such persons as have been excluded from Bap- 
tist churches for communing with other denominations " apos- 
tates" doomed to perdition? I think our Baptist brethren 
will affirm no such thing. Indeed, even to talk of sinning 
against Christ by communing with his own dear disciples, 
appears so inconsistent with the spirit and design of Chris- 



17 

tianity, that serious refutation would seem wholly unneces- 
sary. 

And still, some of the most spiritual, godly members of 
the Close Communion Baptist Church, have been solemnly 
and formally excommunicated from the church and its ordi- 
nances, for no other alleged offence than " mixed commu- 
nion." Even though he were a minister of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and his faith and works attested his Divine mission, 
still, when guilty of " mixed communion," the hand of fel- 
lowship must be withdrawn. Much less then may unimmers- 
ed ministers and church members presume on approaching 
the communion table with our Baptist brethren, when such 
severity is exercised towards their natural members. But I 
dare not withdraw fellowship from a Christian brother for 
doing what never can be proved an immorality, or an 
offence against God, or man i hence I cannot become a Close 
Communion Baptist. 

8. I dare not adopt and sanction a practice that renders 
me grossly inconsistent with myself. Our Baptist brethren 
admit that ministers of other denominations are ministers of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, authorized to preach the gospel, and 
of course administer its ordinances. Hence, our brethren in- 
vite unimmersed ministers to their pulpits^ and frequently ex- 
change with them. Indeed, I have known instances where 
ministers of other denominations preached preparatory ser- 
mons on communion Sabbaths to Baptist churches. But 
they were not permitted to sit down with their hearers and 
commemorate that Saviour's dying love., who had been the 
theme of their sermon. They could receive the word from 
his mouth, but not the bread from his hand I The minister 
was qualified to present the word of life, but not the symbol 
of our Saviour's death I What incongruity. 

Why not be consistent, and maintain that unimmersed 
2* 



18 

ministers of other denominations have no heaven ordained 
right, either to preach the gospel, or administer or partake oi 
the Lord's Supper ? Will not the same preparation that 
qualifies a minister to preach the gospel, also answer for the 
sacramental Supper ? Is not he that is called of God to 
-preach the gospel, also called to administer the ordinances of 
that same gospel ? Who then will deny him the right to 
participate in those ordinances? 1 dare not ; hence I cannot 
hecome a Close Communion Baptist. 

9. I am unwilling to sanction a practice which some of 
our devoted missionaries have not dared to carry out among 
the heathen. I am aware that some of our Baptist brethren 
have denied that their missionaries ever practice u mixed 
communion." But I have the communications from mission- 
ary brethren, on the field of labor, which certify to the fact, 
beyond all controversy. Yes, while our Close Communion 
brethren at home excommunicate their members for uniting 
with Christians of other denominations in the celebration of 
the Lord's Supper, some of their dear missionaries, imbued 
with the spirit of their Lord, have been constrained by a sense 
of love and duty to commit the same offence ! Could they 
do less and not cast a stumbling block before the heathen 
world ? What a comment upon Christianity would Close 
Communion be for the heathen ! The embassadors of Jesus 
Christ — King in Zion, sent to ignorant, lost men, with 
the benevolent, holy religion of the Bible ; and yet these 
servants of the Most High God will not unite in celebrating 
a sacramental Supper in honor of their common Lord ! Well 
might the heathen in tone of solemn rebuke say, " go, be 
reconciled and united among yourselves, and thrn come 
and preach brotherly love to us" or, "physician, heal thy- 
self." My soul revolts at the thought of dividing the dis- 
ciples of Jesus under any circumstances ; but more especially 



19 

at the table of our Divine Redeemer. This, however, is a 
legitimate result of that system which assumes that immer- 
sion only is baptism, and must always precede the Lord's 
Supper. Such is not my faith ; hence I cannot become a 
Close Communion Baptist. 

10. I am unwilling to sanction a practice that is a great 
grief to a vast majority of my brethren and sisters in Christ. 
The distinguished Robert Hall, of England — one of the 
most eloquent men, and brightest luminaries that ever 
rose in the Baptist church, remarks as follows: "It frequent- 
ly happens that the constitution of the church continues to 
sanction strict communion, while the sentiments of a vast 
majority of its members are decidedly in favor of a contrary 
system." Such is the testimony of Mr. Hall when pleading 
for open communion. I doubt not there are tens of thousands 
in the Baptist church who mourn over the anti-scriptural 
practice of excluding from the Lord's table true believers, 
simply because unimmersed. These, with hundreds of thou- 
sands in other Christian churches, constitute an overwhelm- 
ing majority of the Christian world — all of whom regard 
Close Communion with feelings of grief. We are all griev- 
ed that, while we are guilty of no crime that prevents or in- 
terrupts our communion and fellowship with the gracious 
Saviour, or which even our Baptist brethren construe into 
an immorality , still we are turned away with the unbeliev- 
ing world as unicorlhy of a place among them at the table of 
our common Lord, This practice has filled the heart of 
many a husband and wife, parent and child, with bitter 
grief, as the dividing line, based upon the mere question of 
mode, has passed through families, in all other respects unit- 
ed and happy. Can it be that any true principle or practice 
of the gospel church is such a grief to enlightened Christian 
piety ? Are the views and feelings of avast majority of the 



20 

intelligent Christian world all wrong upon so plain a subject 
— a subject wisely and benevolently adapted, even to the 
comprehension of the weakest and most humble disciple of 
Jesus ? I must believe the wrong is with our Close Com- 
munion brethren. A practice so discordant with Christian 
charity, so at a variance with Christian experience, and so op- 
posed to Christian: fellowship, to say the least, looks too sus- 
picious and doubtful to receive my sanction ; hence I cannot 
become a Close Communion Baptist. 

11. 1 am unwilling to sanction a practice that has always 
been a great stumbling block to young converts. I never 
yet conversed with a convert on the subject who was at once 
prepared to endorse Close Communion. Even where their 
minds are made up and settled upon immersion as their only 
mode, still they start at the idea of excluding all but Bap- 
tists, when they come to the communion table ! Indeed our 
Baptist brethren know full well the difficulties and trials in- 
cidental to Close Communion when converts are invited to 
unite with the church. How can it be otherwise ? A re- 
generated soul, filled with love to God and his people, is by 
spiritual birth and moral affinity, in fellowship with all 
who bear the image of Jesus : and lam persuaded that noth- 
ing but special training can ever change the instinctive 
promptings of his moral new-born nature. Begotten in the 
image of God, he loves the image God-like, and is unwilling 
to form religious connections where the operations of Jove 
are limited by sectarian bounds : hence the common declar- 
ation — u I can never become a Close Communion Baptist." 

12. I dare not sanction a practice which virtually says, 
" stand by thyself come not near to me, for I am holier than 
thou :, " Is. 65 : 5. I know our Baptist brethren utterly dis- 
claim this sentiment ; yet I do say " Close Communion" to 
my mind virtually implies it. In all kindness, I would ask 



21 

our brethren, why do you exclude us from your communion, 
if not for neglecting or omitting some part or portion of 
Christian duty performed by yourselves ? Do not the whole 
World know that Baptists profess to obey Christ more perfect- 
ly in the ordinance o^ baptism than other church members, 
and that this obedience is the very foundation of restricted 
communion ? In other words, they affirm, we do not obey 
Christ in the ordinance of baptism ; therefore they cannot 
extend to us the hand of church fellowship. Hence, 
our alleged disobedience is the ground of our exclusion. This 
they must admit, or concede that it is not our duty to be im- 
mersed. If then we are excluded for noncompliance with 
duty, and Baptists are admitted on the ground of compliance, 
what is this but setting up claims to privileges based on su- 
perior obedience, or piety : and is not this virtually, or in ef- 
fect saying, " stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am 
holier than thou." This is what I dare not do ; hence lean- 
not become a Close Communion Baptist. 

13. I dare not sanction a practice which is, at least, in 
part, continued for denominational , or sectarian purposes. 
Heaven forbid that I should impute, unjustly, to our brethren 
improper motives. But what are we to think when the 
leaders and fathers in the Baptist church utter such senti- 
ments as follow : u The tendency of mixed communion is to 
annihilate, as such, all the Baptist churches in Christendom. V 
Again : " Do you wish to promote the dissolution and ruin 
of the Baptist denomination, as such % If you do not, take 
heed to your ways." Such were the views, and such is the Ian- 
guage of the great Mr. Fuller ; p. 24, 25. Will the Bap- 
tist church, " as such" disavow or repudiate them 1 If not, 
then can we but infer, that one great object of Close Com- 
munion is to retain and maintain the identity and distinct pe- 
culiarities of the Baptist denomination, " as such/' 



22 

I have no doubt but the tendency of "mixed communion," 
or of liberal Christian charity and brotherly intercourse and 
fellowship of saints, is to destroy different sects, as such. But 
that fraternal intercourse, even at the Lord's table should des- 
troy any good organization, I shall be very slow to believe. 
If communion tables are reared on principles that require us 
to sacrifice higher and holier considerations, then may God 
hasten their fall, even though they carry down with 
them the sects that reared them. What a startling admis- 
sion — " mixed communion," or for one Christian church to 
commune with another, will " promote the dissolution and 
ruin" of the former I Therefore, to prevent this catastro- 
phy, one Christian church must exclude the other ! This I 
can never do ; hence cannot become a Close Communion 
Baptist. 

14 I am unwilling to sanction a practice that some have 
felt constrained solemnly to renounce in a dying hour. Death 
is a crucible, and many times developes the true state of the 
heart, when all other circumstances and trials fail. This 
fact accounts for disclosures, confessions and changes, that 
frequently occur when men approach the hour of dissolution. 
While bad men open the dark caverns of the human heart 
and reveal the complicated, untold depravity of former years, 
the good man, borne onward and upward by dying grace and 
visions of glory, lingers to leave his last testimony for God 
and the economy of grace. Now the shadow gives way to 
the substance, as the earthly is dissolved into the heavenly. 
The sum of all is, " Christ formed in the hope of glory." 
One tenure only links him to earth— -and that tenure is love. 
And it is the power of that love which frequently induces 
the dying saint to witness against established usages and tra- 
ditions of men. 

Some years since, in Roxbury. Vermont, Mr. R , an 



23 

aged member of the Baptist church, when on his death bed, 
solemnly renounced Close Communion, and received the 
Lord's Supper with his Congregational rbethren, the Deacon 
of the church consecrating and administering the bread and 
wine. Another instance is given by Dr. Pond — Prof, in 
Bangor Seminary; — See Pond, on Bap. p. 154-5. Other sim- 
ilar examples might be given if necessary. 

Need we marvel that the true disciples of Jesus, as they 
get nearer heaven, are more inclined to love and fellowship 
those whom they expect to meet in heaven, and w r ith w r hom 
they expect to dwell and commune eternally ? Heaven will 
admit no sectarians , — no, not one. There will be no discord- 
ant spirits to say, " I am of Paul, and I am of Apollas, and 
I am of Cephas j M — but Christ will be all and in all. Hence, 
should I embrace the theory and practice of Close Commun- 
ion now, I must abandon it then, or never sit down with Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets and martyrs and 
glorified saints, in the kingdom of God ! Yea ; in anticipa- 
tion of that glorious event, I might feel constrained in a dy- 
ing hour to renounce a practice so unlike the spirit and in- 
tercourse of heaven ; hence I cannot become a Close Com- 
munion Baptist 

15. I cannot sanction Close Communion because I deem 
it not only wholly without authority, precept, or example, 
but contrary to the express law and condition of Christian 
fellowship. The unity or oneness of Christ's church is based 
on faith, and not upon the belief of certain doctrines, or con- 
formity to certain rites, or the mere mode of observing those 
rites. Hence, our Saviour prays in John 17 : 20. 21., that 
all who believe in him may be one. Accordingly we hear 
the Apostle Paul say in Rom. 15 : 7 — " him that is weak in 
the faith receive ye" &c. Now can we " receive" the disci- 
ples of Christ, and all become " one" while some exclude 



24 

others and deny them fellowship at the Lord's table? In 
IRom. 15 : 7j the Apostle Paul is still more emphatic, "where- 
fore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the 
glory of God." But did Christ receive us upon condition 
of immersion, or upnn condition that we embrace the distinc- 
tive doctrine of Calvinism, or adopt the 39 Articles ? If no 
such conditions are imposed by the Lord Jesus Christ, then 
why do men exclude their Christian brethren from fellow- 
ship, for not believing and practicing more than Christ re- 
quired as a condition of life eternal ? 

Perhaps we shall be told by our Baptist brethren, that 
they do u receive ,r and fellowship us as Christians, but 
not as church members or persons in full communion with 
them. This is plausible. But will our brethren inform us 
which they regard as most important and essential, church 
fellowship, or Christian fellowship ? In other words, which 
does our Lord demand, that we should receive and fellow- 
ship men because they belong to him, or because they be- 
long to the church ? Let reason and conscience answer ! 
What an absurdity ! Faith may unite us to Christy 
constitute us spiritual members of Ms family — heirs ol 
God, and joint-heirs with Christ : and yet faith cannot 
secure for us the fellowship of our brethren in the sense 
of sitting down with them to the Lord*s table ! Immersion 
must be added to f-iith — total immersion, as the indispensable 
condition and qualification of fellowship. Such is not my 
creed ; hence I cannot become a Close Communion Baptist. 
16. I dare not adopt exclusive immersion as the mode of 
baptism, and Close Communion as a consequence, because 
then in effect, as I conceive, I must sometimes reject the Lord 
Jesus Christ in the person of his disciples. The Saviour is 
so identified with his disciples, that whatever treatment they 
receive, Christ accepts as unto himself. If Christians belong 



25 

to Christ, and possess his spirit, why should he not virtually 
be in their stead, and feel personally every honor and insult 
offered them ? Why not in the judgment day declare to 
the world : il Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the 
LEAST of THESE MY BRETHREN, ye have done it 
unto me." Hence our Lord says again : a He that receiv- 
eth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him 
that sent me." By this I understand, that Christ accepts, in 
his own person, whatever is offered his people, 

Now, what is implied in receiving the disciples of Christ ? 
Do we receive them even while we deny them a place with 
us at the table of our common Saviour ? Shall we be told 
that it is because they have never been properly baptized or 
immersed ? What then ! Are they not Christ's brethren 
— not even the least ? Do they not "belong to Christ — possess 
his Spirit— do his will, and thus represent him on earth? 
Does it accord, then, with the mind and will of Christ to ex- 
clude them from his table, under any circumstances, or for 
any reasons that do not affect their iellowship and commun- 
ion with Christ ? If not, then to exclude them is to discard 
Christ in the person of his own disciples. Hence, the Apos- 
tle declares, 1 Cor. 8 : 12 ; " But when ye sin so against 
the brethren, and wound their weak consciences, ye sin 
against Christ." Now, firmly believing as I do, that Close 
Communion is a great grief to Christian brethren, and in- 
flicts a serious wound upon the consciences of many, and also 
that in effect it rejects Christ in the person of his true disci- 
ple, I cannot become a Close Communion Baptist. 

17. As a minister of the gospel, I dare not adopt immer- 
sion as the exclusive mode, and become a Close Communion 
Baptist, because I must then, as I conceive, either depart from 
the rules of the church, or Lord it over Godh spiritual heritage. 
God's spiritual heritage is his people, the flock of Christ pur- 
3 



26 

erased with his own blood, and embraces all true believers. 
Ministers of the gospel are under shepherds — -in Christ's 
stead — called to watch over, feed the flock, and labor for its 
spiritual; increase. He must study the mind and will of 
Christ concerning his flock, and endeavor faithfully to carry 
out the design of the Great Shepherd, from whom eminates 
all authority, and to whom all are accountable. 

Now suppose the Lord Jesus Christ on earth again, 
engaged m his benevolent mission as when he dwelt among 
men. It is a beautiful, bright sabbath morning, and ten thou- 
sand saints of every creed are among the vast multitude who 
have convened, and now listen with breathless interest to the 
" gracious words that proceed out of his mouth." ' The word 
is a "savor of life unto life. 9 ' and hundreds bow in humble 
submission to the King of kings. The Saviour decides to 
hold a communion season with his disciples before his re- 
turn to his mediatorial throne. But who are to be the 
guests at his table ? Each pious heart, instead of examining 
his neighbor, and judging of his fitness, is absorbed in the 
anxious thought, " shall I be an invited guest ? v Creeds, 
and denominations, and modes of rituals are almost forgotten ; 
while love, and gratitude, and admiration sway all hearts 
touched by the grace and Spirit of God. But hark ! the 
Saviour invites— how runs the invitation ? Is it " come all 
ye orthodox professors of religion ? Or u come all ye 
immersed christians? Of u come all ye church members in 
regular standing T What 1 will Jesus exclude from this 
11 feast of love" some who have just now been baptized with 
his own Spirit, because they have not also been .immersed? 
Or will ecclesiastical standing furnish a passport to his ta- 
ble, while the lambs of his flock, whose hearts burn with the 
ardour of first love, are all excluded ? Would he, who said 
m Peter, "feed my lambs" now deny them that spiritual 



27 

sustenance, deemed so essential for the stronger members 
of his fold ? Shall " mercy" or " sacrifice" dictate the invi- 
tation on this sacramental occasion. But hark — we hear 
him say a All you who love honor and obey me, as your only 
Lord and Saviour, do this in remembrance of me." Then 
taking bread and blessing it, he presents it to his disciples 
saying "take, eat, this is my body" and passing the cup, he 
adds " this cup is the new testament in my blood. , . drink yt 
all of it" No godly husbands and wives separated on this 
occasion. No pious mothers shut out from the Lord's Table, 
while their children are invited guests : but families united, 
throng the Saviour's sacramental board. No separation of 
converts, all alike dear to him who died equally for all. 
There is neither Jew, nor Greek, bond ugv free, male nor fe- 
male, but all one in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Now every gospel miniter is a servant and ambassador of 
Christ, and as such must carry out the spirit and design 
of the mission of Christ. Hence, to dictate, or prescribe 
laws and usages, conditions and restrictions, never imposed 
by the Lord Jesus Christ, is " Lording it over God's heri- 
tage /" If the gospel minister, when standing at the head of 
the Lord's Table, in Christ's stead, solemnly believes that, 
if Christ were present, instead of gospel faith, creeds and 
modes of administering ordinances would be the bond of 
fellowship and condition of communion, why then, to be 
consistent, he will invite to the Sacramental Supper, 
every class of sinners, self-deceived formalists, and designing 
hypocrites : provided, they are accredited church members, 
and have complied with the external rituals of the churches to 
which they belong. But if, on the other hand, he believes 
Christ w r ould exclude only the unworthy, then his invitation 
will welcome the worthy — the true disciples of Jesus, be- 
cause they belong to Christ, 



28 

But it may be urged that an invitation, based simply on 
Christian character, without reference to the mode or rite of 
baptism, or distinctive doctrinal views, would lead to innova- 
tion and disorder in our churches. Now this is exactly what 
I charge upon the opposite course,— it leads to innovation, 
disorder, and still worse, to a gross corruption of Christian- 
ity. The Lord's Supper was instituted for the benefit of be- 
lievers, and believers only, and any invitation that offers it to 
unbelievers is an innovation, a disorder, a gross perversion of 
the ordinance. Now suppose we invite u the members in sis- 
ter churches in good and regular standing ; " does not such 
an invitation base privilege upon church-membership instead 
of Christian character, and thus open the door for the vilest 
of men, provided they are in the church ? All that can be 
urged against an invitation based on Christian character is, 
that it does not sufficiently guard the communion table against 
heresy, and the approach of persons connected with no evan- 
gelical church. Suppose the objection well founded, I then 
enquire, which is the greatest evil, an invitation which per- 
mits good men to come to the Lord's table out of the usual 
order, or an invitation which permits bad men to come be- 
cause in the church ? My own convictions of duty to Christ 
and his church, compel me to say that I would rather com- 
mune with good men out of my own ecclesiastical connec- 
tion than with bad men in my own ecclesiastical connection, 
because with the former Christ himself holds sweet commu- 
nion, but with the latter Jesus holds no fellowship whatever. 

But let us see if the objection is well founded. The invi- 
tation reads, " all you who love, honor and obey me, as your 
only Lord and Saviour, do this in remembrance of me. } * 
First : Now can it be said, that such as reject the vital and 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, " love honor and obey " 
Christ as " Lord and Saviour 1 " If not, then the church is 



.&&*r 



29 

safe from destructive heresies, so far as our invitation is con- 
cerned. Second: Will Christians who "love honor and 
obey " Christ as " Lord and Saviour" refuse or neglect to 
identify themselves with the church of Christ ? Let those 
believe it who understand obedience to mean " neglect of duty J 1 
In all our churches sufficient intervals occur between com- 
munion seasons to give converts an opportunity of connect- 
ing themselves with the church of Christ, and let those in- 
tervals witness the ingathering of such as give evidence of 
piety, and not leave them out of the fold of Christ three or 
six months by way of experiment, and then exclude them 
from the essential means of grace because they are not in 
the church J This removes the last objection, unless we 
meet with extreme cases, or exceptions to the general rule. 
That extreme cases do occur, none will deny. Now if in ex- 
treme cases the people of God might omit circumcision, al- 
though a token of God's covenant, and a seal of the right- 
eousness of faith ; and David and they that were with him 
might eat the shew bread, though unlawful to do so, and 
many of the Jews celebrate the feast of unleavened bread 
while ceremonially unclean, then who will undertake to prove 
that no case can occur where water baptism may be dispens- 
ed with as a pre-requisite for the Lord's Supper % I contend 
for & principle, and not for a general practice, and that prin- 
ciple is " mercy rather than sacrifice " — a principle absolute- 
ly essential to a religion of mercy. If our opponents deny 
the relevancy of the examples I have given, then I point them 
to the apostles, and challenge the shadow of evidence that 
they were baptized in the name of the Trinity before they 
celebrated the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ! It is in vain 
to say they had previously been baptized by John ! Would 
our opponent now accept water baptism, as valid when the 
name of Father, Son and Spirit were omitted in the admin- 



30 

Istration ? If not, then the apostles were not qualified for 
the Supper according to modern conditions. 

Some sixty years after the apostles, a few Christian Jews 
were passing through an Eastern desert, when one of their 
company suddenly sickened, professed faith in Christ, and 
desired baptism. As water could not be obtained, they bap- 
tized him with sand. Now suppose he had desired the Lord's 
Supper? Which would have best accorded with the spirit 
and genius of a merciful religion, to deny him, or comply 
with his request? What would the Saviour do in like cir- 
cumstances if on earth again? Let him believe it who can, 
that the compassionate Jesus, in such extremity would refuse 
a dying disciple the symbols of his broken body and shed 
blood, simply because unbaptized ! Call it an extreme case, 
and still it decides a principle, fatal to the theory and prac- 
tice of Close Communion. 

And now, dear brethren, I humbly submit my " reasons " 
for your consideration. While I am accountable to God for 
what I have written, you are equally answerable for the use 
you make of my ci reasons. " I have endeavored to write in 
the spirit of brotherly kindness and Christian charity, and I 
beseech you prayerfully to consider the thoughts presented, 
and if they accord with Divine revelation — with the genius 
of our holy religion, and especially with the law of Christian 
brotherhood, then abide by them, though it cost you self-de- 
nial, sacrifice, and even martyrdom. Never let the " tradi- 
tions of elders" " ecclesiastical usage" or mere church 
policy " lead you to adopt, what is repugnant to the spirit of 
Christianity. And may the God of all grace direct and es- 
tablish you in the truth, and finally give you an inheritance 
among the sanctified in his kingdom. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procei 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnoiogie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATII 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 670 276 4 



